# How To Fix Weird Visual Behaviour When Pairing the EOS-1D X Mark II & Sigma Lenses



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 20, 2016)

```
A few years ago, very few people would be pairing a flagship Canon DSLR with Sigma lenses, but this has all changed with the change in direction Sigma has taken with their Art and Sports series lenses.</p>
<p>That said, there appears to be an issue with the Canon EOS-1D X Mark II and Sigma lenses when paired together, you see in the image above the type of visual defect we’re talking about. It appears the Canon EOS-1D X Mark II is attempting to correct vignetting and other characteristics of the Sigma lens attached. As you can see, it’s not doing a very good job.</p>
<p>To correct this issue do the following.</p>
<ul>
<li>Navigate to red menu 1 and locate <strong>Lens abberation correction</strong></li>
<li>Turn <strong>Peripheral illum corr</strong> to OFF</li>
</ul>
<p>This should solve your issues so you can get back to enjoying your EOS-1D X Mark II and excellent Sigma lenses.</p>
<p><em>image credit // <a href="https://www.slrlounge.com/pairing-canon-1dx-mk-ii-sigma-35mm-art-lens-creates-weird-effect/" target="_blank">SLRLounge</a></em></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## douglaurent (May 20, 2016)

Yes, when using third party lenses, better turn all these corrections off - way too many problems.

Unfortunately some Tamron lenses like the 15-30/2.8 VC (which Canon doesn't equally offer unfortunately) don't work at all - and i mean completely do not work at all.

If Canon's idea was to make people buy Canon lenses only, it was a very bad idea for Canon.

Buying the most expensive flagship camera, and then finding out that half of the lenses that work with all other cameras do have problems, is an epic fail. 

If Canon would offer lenses with all specifications and quality that third parties have to offer, I wouldn't complain, but unfortunately they do.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 20, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> Yes, when using third party lenses, better turn all these corrections off - way too many problems.
> 
> Unfortunately some Tamron lenses like the 15-30/2.8 VC (which Canon doesn't equally offer unfortunately) don't work at all - and i mean completely do not work at all.
> 
> ...



I don't believe Canon would spend any R&D time making third party lenses unusable, it's just a byproduct of new technologies in new products. It's not Canon's responsibility to make sure all third party lenses work, only their own and at times they've even had issues with that.


----------



## KiagiJ (May 20, 2016)

I turned off all corrections. Unfortunately my sigma 50 1.4 art still misses focus on all outer points through the viewfinder, yet they're fine on my 6D. I guess I'll be live view shooting it till I figure somin out hmm :/


----------



## koenkooi (May 20, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> Yes, when using third party lenses, better turn all these corrections off - way too many problems.



I've found it only to be a problem when using jpeg or video, for RAW stills these corrections don't seem to do anything. Adobe tools to a decent job picking the right lens in post, so for me personally, this is a complete non-issue. Of course I have the freedom to choose RAW, a lot of professionals have customers demanding jpegs straight out of the camera :/


----------



## weixing (May 20, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> Yes, when using third party lenses, better turn all these corrections off - way too many problems.
> 
> Unfortunately some Tamron lenses like the 15-30/2.8 VC (which Canon doesn't equally offer unfortunately) don't work at all - and i mean completely do not work at all.
> 
> ...


Hi,
I think people forget that it's the third party manufacturer who said that their product is compatible with Canon, not the other way round, so the responsibility is on the third party manufacturer... 

Have a nice day.


----------



## romanr74 (May 20, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> If Canon would offer lenses with all specifications and quality that third parties have to offer, I wouldn't complain, but unfortunately they do.



Looking forward for that list of specs and qualities canon does not offer in their lens line-up...


----------



## romanr74 (May 20, 2016)

koenkooi said:


> Of course I have the freedom to choose RAW, a lot of professionals have customers demanding jpegs straight out of the camera :/



Who is the pro here? The customer or the photographer? I also don't tell my carpenter to use the tree that he just yesterday chopped off...


----------



## jebrady03 (May 20, 2016)

Canon Rumors said:


> I don't believe Canon would spend any R&D time making third party lenses unusable, it's just a byproduct of new technologies in new products. It's not Canon's responsibility to make sure all third party lenses work, only their own and at times they've even had issues with that.



Exactly. They're not spending R&D time (time = money) ensuring other companies lenses don't work. They're also not spending R&D time/money ensuring that they DO work. Why...?



weixing said:


> Hi,
> I think people forget that it's the third party manufacturer who said that their product is compatible with Canon, not the other way round, so the responsibility is on the third party manufacturer...
> 
> Have a nice day.



Because that.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 20, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> Buying the most expensive flagship camera, and then finding out that half of the lenses that work with all other cameras do have problems, is an epic fail.



I missed the part where Canon guarantees compatibility with all or any 3rd party lenses. So...epic fail by Tamron. If you personally are having the compatiblity issue you describe, contact Tamron and hope they offer a fix or a refund. Good luck.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (May 20, 2016)

Some people have noted a similar issue (as the Sigma issue described above) with the new Tamron 85 VC, and that the same fix works.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (May 20, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > Buying the most expensive flagship camera, and then finding out that half of the lenses that work with all other cameras do have problems, is an epic fail.
> ...



Tamron has always been very quick to do free firmware updates for such issue (which seems to be happening with more regularity recently, indicating that cameras are changing in more substantial ways right now). I've had to have it done myself, and my turnaround was no more than a week. This is why Sigma (and now Tamron) are smart to release the docks and save themselves some money flashing firmware. Unfortunately this fix only applies to recent Sigma lenses (and very recent Tamron lenses). Even the 35/45 VC lenses will have to be first sent in for a firmware change to allow compatibility with the dock.


----------



## Rudeofus (May 20, 2016)

Canon Rumors said:


> I don't believe Canon would spend any R&D time making third party lenses unusable, it's just a byproduct of new technologies in new products. It's not Canon's responsibility to make sure all third party lenses work, only their own and at times they've even had issues with that.



They did that once with the 10D, when all of a sudden Sigma lenses wouldn't work with newer Canon cameras. The protocol has been publicly reverse engineered, and it was shown that command '16' was pointlessly substituted with command '17'. This was the command for stopping down the lens, and since Sigma ignored the previously unknown and unused command '17', the lens never stopped down, thereby causing the dreaded Err99 condition.

Tinkerers put some circuitry between an sold Sigma lens and a contemporary Canon camera body, and had that circuitry replace '17' with '16' in the communication line from camera to lens - sure enough all these old Sigma lenses worked again. This tells me that this new command code was not needed for new functionality, but simply exploited a weakness in Sigma's reverse engineering to render their lenses incompatible with newer camera bodies. 

Bad behavior in the past does not necessarily predict bad behavioral patterns today, but let's face it: Canon creating protocol changes to hurt their lens competition is neither unheard of, nor unimaginable. This kind of behavior also exists in other industries (e.g. Keurig), so let's not act surprised if "let's make it incompatible with Sigma/Tamron" actually turns out to have been one of the design goals.


----------



## dcm (May 20, 2016)

Rudeofus said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > I don't believe Canon would spend any R&D time making third party lenses unusable, it's just a byproduct of new technologies in new products. It's not Canon's responsibility to make sure all third party lenses work, only their own and at times they've even had issues with that.
> ...



Not necessarily. Doesn't sound like the tinkerers attempted to figure out which Canon lenses no longer functioned if they received code 16 instead of 17.


----------



## JohnUSA (May 20, 2016)

I've had this issue about two years ago with my Sigma 85mm on 5D3. Here's my original post with pics at the Canon forum:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1391399


----------



## tron (May 20, 2016)

I have a paperweight Tokina ATX28-70 2.8.

Now some may say that this is very old and now this not the case. However Tokina had ceased working with my analog EOS50E (while it worked fine with 600,620,RT and 1n).

Similar with Sigma lenses. So I got rid of everything 3rd party except from my manual focus Zeiss 21mm ZE (and the paperweight which I cannot get rid of) and I never looked back. 

I forgot to mention that Sigma and Tokina representatives could not fix these issues (even with payment).

This behavior with Tamron proves my concept that if 3rd party manufacturers had probelms in the past
they will have in the future eventually. 

Let's hope that this time they will deal with them


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (May 20, 2016)

tron said:


> I have a paperweight Tokina ATX28-70 2.8.
> 
> Now some may say that this is very old and now this not the case. However Tokina had ceased working with my analog EOS50E (while it worked fine with 600,620,RT and 1n).
> 
> ...



The M3 bricked the rather nice Tamron 18-200mm VC lens; Tamron issued a free fix. I think the new Sigma and Tamron are much more serious about being competitive...and why their respective docks for quickly distributing firmware updates have come into existence.

The flipside is that they are far more of a threat to serious Canon lenses now, too, so I won't be surprised for Canon to "accidentally" create a few more issues along the way. The upside to these firmware fixes though is that both companies have actually added functionality to existing lenses through firmware (Sigma 150-600 C and S got faster focus; Tamron 150-600 VC got panning support from the VC and better AF). For those willing to invest the time and effort to get firmware updates there may be other rewards...like enhanced functionality of their lenses.

But whomever mentioned that the it is the third parties responsibility to provide the fixes is right; they are making their products compatible with the Canon, Nikon, and Sony bodies. None of these companies is building for third party lenses. I don't think ethically they should try to intentionally cripple third party products, but neither should they have to waste valuable R&D time trying to solve problems that might only affect third parties when developing.


----------



## tr573 (May 20, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> Yes, when using third party lenses, better turn all these corrections off - way too many problems.
> 
> Unfortunately some Tamron lenses like the 15-30/2.8 VC (which Canon doesn't equally offer unfortunately) don't work at all - and i mean completely do not work at all.
> 
> ...



This was the case for the 5DS/R in live view also , several Tamron lenses including the 15-30 would not AF. Tamron released a firmware update < 6 weeks after the camera hit shelves, so they will likely have this turned about quickly as well. Their turnaround time (in the US) on repairs and firmware updates is very fast.


----------



## tron (May 20, 2016)

tr573 said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, when using third party lenses, better turn all these corrections off - way too many problems.
> ...


As you said: "In the US". Now don't get me wrong I do not accuse them of anything but you can see the second thoughts that this situation may raise in other parts of the world...


----------



## JohnUSA (May 20, 2016)

When my Sigma had the "ring" problem to Sigma's credit they updated the 85mm firmware and returned the lens in three days. This was about a year and half ago.


----------



## tron (May 20, 2016)

To their discredit I was declined support for my old EOS compatible AF Sigma 14mm.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (May 20, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > If Canon would offer lenses with all specifications and quality that third parties have to offer, I wouldn't complain, but unfortunately they do.
> ...



Um, f/2.8 wide angle zoom with image stabilization? Fast 85mm prime with image stabilization? 



romanr74 said:


> koenkooi said:
> 
> 
> > Of course I have the freedom to choose RAW, a lot of professionals have customers demanding jpegs straight out of the camera :/
> ...



Well, the pro obviously isn't you. Many clients have good reasons for needing immediate jpegs. Don't criticize people if you don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 20, 2016)

tron said:


> To their discredit I was declined support for my old EOS compatible AF Sigma 14mm.


I had five Sigma EOS compatible lenses, only one could be upgraded to work with Canon DSLR's, and the charged me over $100 to do that. The others still worked, but only for older Canon film bodies.

I also had a 28mm f/2.8 rebranded Sigma, (Quantaray). No luck and no upgrade. It came with a used film camera, so it cost me nothing.

If I purchase a new car, the manufacturer does not guarantee that it will work with Weathertech floor mats, its up to the accessory maker to assure they fit. Same for radios or any accessory. I have a hard time trying to figure out why Canon would be responsible to make their camera work with every poorly engineered accessory in the past, and the future. New model cameras are actually designed in the past, at least two years. So expecting it to work on a new 3rd party lens is a bit of a stretch, since no one new of that lens when the camera was designed.


----------



## Besisika (May 20, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> koenkooi said:
> 
> 
> > Of course I have the freedom to choose RAW, a lot of professionals have customers demanding jpegs straight out of the camera :/
> ...


Of course the customer is the pro. Don't do what they ask you to do and soon enough you will be out of profession.
Major sport events require you to shoot in JPEG at the max resolution of your camera only. For the ones I do, I can see my photos only on the back of my camera, and as soon as I am done someone takes my card away, I use a back up until I get that one back, returned formatted. 
He is not talking about wedding or model photo-shoot here.


----------



## ritholtz (May 20, 2016)

On top of that old Canon lens seem to be working without any issues.


----------



## jebrady03 (May 20, 2016)

Also... if that's an actual representation of the issue, it looks like it could have some actual usage for certain types of images. Kind of neat


----------



## koenkooi (May 20, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> koenkooi said:
> 
> 
> > Of course I have the freedom to choose RAW, a lot of professionals have customers demanding jpegs straight out of the camera :/
> ...



I might be misremembering, but Scott Kelby says he's jpeg only for sports shoots due to customer demands. There was also a big outrage on the internet about reuters a while back, but I think that turned out to be more nuanced than the internet could handle in the end.


----------



## Mikehit (May 20, 2016)

koenkooi said:


> I might be misremembering, but Scott Kelby says he's jpeg only for sports shoots due to customer demands. There was also a big outrage on the internet about reuters a while back, but I think that turned out to be more nuanced than the internet could handle in the end.



That is what i remember as well. But he isn't the only one and it isn't limited to sports - events journalists in general are turning to jpeg only where they are providing images for online news agencies. It is so competitive it is less about absolute image quality and more about who can get their images to the editor's desk as quickly as possible: when using wifi raw files take far longer to transfer than jpeg and raw files need processing. 

Shot to global distribution in 90 seconds:
http://gizmodo.com/the-inside-story-of-how-olympic-photographers-capture-s-1521746623


----------



## tron (May 20, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > To their discredit I was declined support for my old EOS compatible AF Sigma 14mm.
> ...



Sorry but this is not a valid comparison:

1. Canon "cars" err old (and some excellent) lenses I mean would still work though! 
2. If you read my post you will notice that the specific (Tokina) lens didn't work even with 1996's EOS50E (the lens was bought in 1993!). It's a shame!
3. You are right about knowledge. One more reason (for me) to ignore 3rd party lenses (although with firmare updates they do have some hope to last longer).


----------



## tphillips63 (May 20, 2016)

I simply avoid the issue by only using Canon lenses.
I know other brands try to make compatibility but for me the focus issues of 'working' lenses are enough to not take a chance, ever. No amount of marketing would get me to change my mind.
I would use a different brand manual focus lens though.


----------



## Rudeofus (May 20, 2016)

dcm said:


> Not necessarily. Doesn't sound like the tinkerers attempted to figure out which Canon lenses no longer functioned if they received code 16 instead of 17.


Since all Canon cameras prior to 10D sent command '16' instead of command '17', and since all Canon lenses worked (and still work) with these older Canon camera bodies, we can safely assume that Canon lenses handled command '16' and command '17' as the same thing. Canon lenses probably didn't check the least significant bit when decoding this one. Sigma falsely assumed that command '17' would not be issued and therefore their lenses failed to work with Canon camera bodies since 10D.

Note, that while Canon's sleezy move from command '16' to command '17' may have been aimed at 'traitors who bought non-Canon glass', it at the same time hurt loyal Canon customers, particularly those who already had a Canon camera and then upgraded to a newer Canon body.



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > To their discredit I was declined support for my old EOS compatible AF Sigma 14mm.
> ...



A number of unfortunate facts came together:
[list type=decimal]
[*]Flash memory was considerably more expensive than one time programmable memory. Changing firmware of an existing device meant replacing the memory chip holding the firmware. Since Sigma operated mostly in the low cost segment these days, their lenses had to be "rechipped" in order to make them work with newer Canon camera bodies. Obviously this is no longer an issue with more recent lenses, and every lens today can be firmware updated, as long as the vendor supplies updates.
[*]ROHS was introduced in this time frame, which made it illegal to sell electronics soldered with lead solder. Sigma would have had to gut out the entire electronics of their old lenses and replace them with lead free soldered ones. In most cases such a repair would have been much more expensive than buying a new lens.
[*]Sigma decided to throw their customer base under the bus when Canon screwed them over with the new lens protocol. Sigma could have offered new lenses to replace old, now dysfunctional ones at great discount, they could have done something to make their customer base happy, but they decided not to spend money on this and rather sit out the crisis. This decision hopefully cost them a great deal of money in the long run, and their reputation rightfully still suffers badly from this very bad decision they made in 2003.
[/list]

So to sum it up: Canon chose the perfect time frame to strike at all existing Sigma lens owners, and Sigma was cheap, dumb and greedy enough to turn a modest crisis into a huge reputational disaster.


----------



## wallstreetoneil (May 21, 2016)

I own a 1Dx II and also the Tamron 45 & 85 - all three of the new Tamrons are affected - turn off the peripheril illum corr and it is all fixed - not a big deal.


----------



## NaturaLight (May 22, 2016)

I use a Sigma 24-105 and 150 - 600 with that body. No issues at all, no matter what those settings.


----------



## ashmadux (May 24, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> koenkooi said:
> 
> 
> > I might be misremembering, but Scott Kelby says he's jpeg only for sports shoots due to customer demands. There was also a big outrage on the internet about reuters a while back, but I think that turned out to be more nuanced than the internet could handle in the end.
> ...



Quoted for truth. I covered this past fashion week for a LARGE entertainment site, and it was jpeg only (thank god- and the jpegs from 5d3 look AWESOME). Im pretty sure that their editorial department wouldn't have a single person to handle raw files anyways.

Even with jpg only, I was sending 8gb of files every night- there is no upload service or connection outside of t1 lines I can think of that would be able to handle the raw equivalent of those file sizes to get over to the client 'fast'. In fact, it is something I'm researching at the moment, as my home cable line is upload-limited, and thankfully I was able to use my 4x faster t-mobile phone as a modem - sending two huge zip files at a time from both connections.

I actually never shot jpeg at all before this client work, however now i always shoot in raw+jpeg after that experience.


----------



## TommyLee (May 27, 2016)

my tamron 15-30 works 100% on 5d3...
my Tamron lens is one of the earliest ones..
on the 1dx2 the 15-30 did not do live view or video but worked great as slr mode...
I will get it back from its update tuesday may31st
...

we will see...

I may have had the perif setting on on 1dx2...not sure... but now we can know....

thats the nature of the 3rd part stuff ..at the moment...

I will add BACK to this thread...results...
...if it still here after I get my updated lens next week....


----------

