# SIGMA will announce two new Contemporary prime lenses soon



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 26, 2021)

> The Q4 announcement spree from manufacturers looks to be ramping up, as SIGMA will announce two new Contemporary prime lenses soon.
> SIGMA will announce the following lenses
> 
> 24mm f/2 DG DN Contemporary
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## Chaitanya (Aug 26, 2021)

Really hoping RF mount gets support from Sigma and Tamron. Will be interesting to see if they can keep with firmware updates.
Edit: curious to find out the max mag ratio of 24mm lens. 24mm lens with .5x mag ratio was a good wide angle macro for herpers.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Aug 26, 2021)

Seriously who comes up with these names. "90mm f/2.8 DG DN Contemporary" Who really wants to say all that?


----------



## Hector1970 (Aug 26, 2021)

24mm F2 would be a nice compact size


----------



## entoman (Aug 26, 2021)

Chaitanya said:


> Really hoping RF mount gets support from Sigma and Tamron. Will be interesting to see if they can keep with firmware updates.
> Edit: curious to find out the max mag ratio of 24mm lens. 24mm lens with .5x mag ratio was a good wide angle macro for herpers.


Yes, given the current limited range of RF lenses, and the cost of the more exotic ones, it would be great if Sigma and Tamron could reverse engineer and produce affordable RF lenses that matched OEM AF performance (acquisition speed and tracking rapidly accelerating/decelerating subjects - I don't think there would be an issue regarding tracking *across* the frame, as this is independent of focusing speed).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 26, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


> Seriously who comes up with these names. "90mm f/2.8 DG DN Contemporary" Who really wants to say all that?


As opposed to, say, the Canon RF 100mm f/2.8 L Macro IS USM or the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III USM?


----------



## SteveC (Aug 26, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> As opposed to, say, the Canon RF 100mm f/2.8 L Macro IS USM or the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III USM?



Those are a mouthful but at least every part of those lens names maps to the spec (except for the III which is essentially a version number). The name describes the lens, albeit at length. What does "Contemporary" actually mean in relation to a lens?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 26, 2021)

SteveC said:


> Those are a mouthful but at least every part of those lens names maps to the spec (except for the III which is essentially a version number). The name describes the lens, albeit at length. What does "Contemporary" actually mean in relation to a lens?


They sort their lenses into houses. Like Gryffindor and Slytherin. Contemporary = Hufflepuff.


----------



## Kiton (Aug 26, 2021)

Hector1970 said:


> 24mm F2 would be a nice compact size


I would be in for a 24 or preferably a 28 f2. F2 is all you need in the streets.


----------



## csibra (Aug 26, 2021)

entoman said:


> ... it would be great if Sigma and Tamron could reverse engineer and produce affordable RF lenses that matched OEM AF performance ...


There're legal issues not technical/reverse enginiering ones says the Hungarian Sigma Co.


----------



## entoman (Aug 26, 2021)

csibra said:


> There're legal issues not technical/reverse enginiering ones says the Hungarian Sigma Co.


Definitely. Canon will have everything patented, and will try hard to protect lucrative sales of their RF exotica, so anyone treading on their toes could find themselves in trouble. I can't see Canon releasing the RF protocols, at least not until they have filled out their range of RF glass. There's little benefit to Canon if they make the mount available to all comers. Some of the Chinese brands might be willing to take the gamble, as it's in their culture to "copy and improve", but Tamron and Sigma are selling lenses in other mounts as fast as they can produce them, so I think they'll be in no great hurry to produce RF.


----------



## AJ (Aug 27, 2021)

entoman said:


> Definitely. Canon will have everything patented, and will try hard to protect lucrative sales of their RF exotica, so anyone treading on their toes could find themselves in trouble. I can't see Canon releasing the RF protocols, at least not until they have filled out their range of RF glass. There's little benefit to Canon if they make the mount available to all comers. Some of the Chinese brands might be willing to take the gamble, as it's in their culture to "copy and improve", but Tamron and Sigma are selling lenses in other mounts as fast as they can produce them, so I think they'll be in no great hurry to produce RF.



Sigma and Tamron are producing Sony e-mount lenses. I imagine there must be some agreement with Sony, or else they've reverse-engineered without legal repercussions. These third-party manufacturers are not (yet) producing lenses for Canon. And that's too bad. I think more people would jump to Canon or else upgrade from EF to R if a good selection of third-party lenses were available.. I think Canon is at a competitive disadvantage to Sony in this regard.
Food for thought: Imagine if Microsoft only allowed their own software to run on Windows...


----------



## navastronia (Aug 27, 2021)

The situation makes me uneasy. As I've said in other threads, I own the Samyang RF 14/2.8 and RF 85/1.4. They're great lenses, but users have reported autofocus problems on newer R bodies (especially the R5 and R6). Is Canon messing with the firmware in order to prevent the lenses from working well? Do the lenses require firmware updates from Samyang in order to keep pace with Canon's bodies? I don't know, but I'm not excited to find out


----------



## RayValdez360 (Aug 27, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> As opposed to, say, the Canon RF 100mm f/2.8 L Macro IS USM or the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III USM?


Canon names make sense except the broadcast servos. I don't know what a DG or a DN is. Also "Contemporary" sounds like some Engrish that sounds cool to Japanese people. What's next the Sigma 24-70 DN DG OS II HSM Super Champion Edition.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Aug 27, 2021)

AJ said:


> Sigma and Tamron are producing Sony e-mount lenses. I imagine there must be some agreement with Sony, or else they've reverse-engineered without legal repercussions. These third-party manufacturers are not (yet) producing lenses for Canon. And that's too bad. I think more people would jump to Canon or else upgrade from EF to R if a good selection of third-party lenses were available.. I think Canon is at a competitive disadvantage to Sony in this regard.
> Food for thought: Imagine if Microsoft only allowed their own software to run on Windows...


I feel that Sigma would have the headstart with fast primes over Canon. They would proably have their own 16, 20, 35, 50, 85, 135 1.4 or 1.2s out already or coming very soon. When canon comes out ( at a higher price), many people might be like , "Nah i got one already" or " i will get the sigma version it is cheaper"


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 27, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


> Canon names make sense except the broadcast servos. I don't know what a DG or a DN is. Also "Contemporary" sounds like some Engrish that sounds cool to Japanese people. What's next the Sigma 24-70 DN DG OS II HSM Super Champion Edition.


What does RF stand for? Nomenclature makes sense to those who know it, or care to look it up. LMAO but YMMV.


----------



## Nemorino (Aug 27, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


> I don't know what a DG or a DN is


DG= lens for full frame cameras
DN= lens for mirrorless cameras


----------



## RayValdez360 (Aug 27, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


> I feel that Sigma would have the headstart with fast primes over Canon. They would proably have their own 16, 20, 35, 50, 85, 135 1.4 or 1.2s out already or coming very soon. When canon comes out ( at a higher price), many people might be like , "Nah i got one already" or " will get the sigma version it is cheaper"





Nemorino said:


> DG= lens for full frame cameras
> DN= lens for mirrorless cameras


Why DN and DG what do they stand for.


----------



## deleteme (Aug 27, 2021)

Sigma makes great products but is uninterested in trying to reverse engineer the line for RF compatibility when they have their hands full making Sony users happy.


----------



## jd7 (Aug 27, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


> Why DN and DG what do they stand for.


DN = digital native (ie designed for mirrorless)

I'm not sure about DG. Sigma has DC lenses, which I think stands for digital (or maybe DSLR?) compact, which are for APS-C sensor cameras. Regarding DG, the G definitely indicates full frame, and I think the G may have even been similar to Canon's L at one time, so DG refers to the G series for full frame in the DSLR/digital age.

Particularly now sigma uses art, sport and contemporary, I think sigma could probably consider reducing the number of teens they use 

EDIT: Actually, I think maybe I'm wrong about DG. I think possibly Sigma used to have a G series and a DG series, which were both for full-frame cameras, and the DG series was the higher end series (with D standing for deluxe?). The DC series was equivalent to DG but for ASP-C sensor cameras. Basically, I'm just not sure!


----------



## Frankonian (Aug 27, 2021)

Canon is Canon. 
No cooperation with anybody, except: Canon. 
No cooperation with software companys like adobe (see missing camera specific profiles for CR3-Raws in Lightroom & Adobe Camera Raw). "Hey, we got DPP"
No cooperation with third partie lens manufactureres. "Hey, we got nice 2.5-3k RF-L-glasses & cheap beginners glas".

As an long-time user of quite a big EF-camera and lens-equipmenet and an EOS R6 I see myself quite stuck in a dead end with Canon system.


----------



## Chaitanya (Aug 27, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


> Seriously who comes up with these names. "90mm f/2.8 DG DN Contemporary" Who really wants to say all that?











Sigma Corporation - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## mjg79 (Aug 27, 2021)

Frankonian said:


> Canon is Canon.
> No cooperation with anybody, except: Canon.
> No cooperation with software companys like adobe (see missing camera specific profiles for CR3-Raws in Lightroom & Adobe Camera Raw). "Hey, we got DPP"
> No cooperation with third partie lens manufactureres. "Hey, we got nice 2.5-3k RF-L-glasses & cheap beginners glas".
> ...



In fairness to Canon I think the "walled garden" approach made sense in the 80s and 90s. Back then many third party options were terrible. It was also very difficult to do things like update autofocus software algorithms in a lens - Canon could quite honestly say to their customers "you're better off just using Canon lenses so we can therefore guarantee they will always work with every EF camera". I remember when they went to digital something changed and a lot of old Sigma glass stopped working and there was pretty much nothing Sigma could do.

Well the world has changed but Canon (and Nikon) haven't yet caught up. Funnily enough the two companies who have best grasped the change, and profited in massive ways, are precisely the two electronic companies who were for years regarded as the worst in terms of insisting on proprietary tech - Apple and Sony. Apple realised there was no point them trying to make every app or accessory for iphones but instead licensing others to do so only made their ecosystem stronger. And Sony learnt that lesson very well - so in the Sony mount you can get not only their lenses but also beautifully crafted manual focus Voigtlander and Zeiss lenses, keenly priced 2.8 offerings from Tamron and some amazing Sigma glass from huge perfectly corrected Art 1.4 lenses to their new DG DN modestly sized but high quality glass. All of it works basically as native as Sony shares the mount information and can therefore have some control over what happens. Indeed the new generation Sigma lenses are generally built to a higher standard (and in Japan and tested before shipping) than Sony GM lenses - they are second only to Canon L and thus really improve the Sony eco-system.

Why the change? Well the world has changed. Manufacturing capability has now spread far and wide. It's no longer the case that only this factory in this country can produce to such high standards. Secondly information and software can now be shared instantly so things like updating firmware cease to be an issue. Thirdly consumers want more choice than any single manufacturer can provide. Even Apple, worth literally trillions of dollars, realised they couldn't provide every app on their phones - better to harness the power of others.

I hope Canon sees that it's in the interests of their customers to work _with_ and not _against_ some of these other companies. I quite understand that right now with the RF system they are making big money selling at introduction-level prices to people with GAS. I couldn't resist buying a couple of RF lenses despite knowing the price will drop in the coming years. But long term there is no chance at all that Canon will produce a 21mm 3.5 manual focus lens. So let Voigtlander do it. Canon won't produce a 45mm 2.8 autofocus lens made to top standards in Japan and designed for soft bokeh. So let Sigma do it. If they made agreements with these other companies they could in return for example let Sigma know they can't release the 24-70 DG DN for a few years in RF mount while they sell the new RF 24-70 L at the current super high price.

I love the RF system - when taken as a whole package I consider it vastly better than the options from Sony, especially with regard to ergonomics and quality control and there's no way I'll stop using Canon. But long term it's going to be frustrating if only Sony users get all the good stuff from Voigtlander, Zeiss, Tamron, Sigma.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 27, 2021)

mjg79 said:


> In fairness to Canon I think the "walled garden" approach made sense in the 80s and 90s.
> 
> Well the world has changed but Canon (and Nikon) haven't yet caught up.


Interesting points, but I guess I missed the part where this has hurt Canon, who is the global ILC market leader and has been so for nearly two decades.

Actually, I think it’s _you_ who missed that part.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 27, 2021)

Frankonian said:


> Canon is Canon.
> No cooperation with anybody, except: Canon.
> No cooperation with software companys like adobe (see missing camera specific profiles for CR3-Raws in Lightroom & Adobe Camera Raw). "Hey, we got DPP"
> No cooperation with third partie lens manufactureres. "Hey, we got nice 2.5-3k RF-L-glasses & cheap beginners glas".
> ...


Regarding software companies that's simply not true. I recently found a quote from Rudy Winston confirming that Canon worked closely with Adobe on a specific lens profile. I don't know why Adobe does not have camera specific profiles for recent Canon cameras, but there may be reasons that we are unaware of and cannot assume it is a decision by Canon.


----------



## AJ (Aug 27, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


> I feel that Sigma would have the headstart with fast primes over Canon. They would proably have their own 16, 20, 35, 50, 85, 135 1.4 or 1.2s out already or coming very soon. When canon comes out ( at a higher price), many people might be like , "Nah i got one already" or " i will get the sigma version it is cheaper"


IMHO that's even more of a reason for Canon to license RF. They could be making money off of every RF-compatible lens that Sigma sells.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 27, 2021)

AJ said:


> IMHO that's even more of a reason for Canon to license RF. They could be making money off of every RF-compatible lens that Sigma sells.


And losing even more money on every similar Sigma lens bought instead of the Canon counterpart.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 27, 2021)

Frankonian said:


> Canon is Canon.
> No cooperation with anybody, except: Canon.
> No cooperation with software companys like adobe (see missing camera specific profiles for CR3-Raws in Lightroom & Adobe Camera Raw). "Hey, we got DPP"
> No cooperation with third partie lens manufactureres. "Hey, we got nice 2.5-3k RF-L-glasses & cheap beginners glas".
> ...


What about the Atomos collaboration?

What about Red who sell EF and RF mount option cameras and paid the licensing fees to do so correctly?

It seems when it makes sense to Canon they do work with third parties.


----------



## mjg79 (Aug 27, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Interesting points, but I guess I missed the part where this has hurt Canon, who is the global ILC market leader and has been so for nearly two decades.
> 
> Actually, I think it’s _you_ who missed that part.



Well I think these issues are a lot more complex than you are suggesting, it doesn't all boil down to a simple case of it must either hurt or not hurt a company. Canon remains number 1, they are the best there is, but it certainly doesn't mean they couldn't do better or provide a better platform for their customers. As recently as 2020 (in a market I know is fast changing) Sony remained the leader in mirrorless sales with Canon growing fast - a decade ago nobody here would have predicted Sony outselling Canon in such a market, indeed it would have been laughed at.

As for hurting Canon - while impossible to quantify, it's a fair assumption that a great many of the Sony sales of recent years would have gone to Canon had Canon moved more quickly into mirrorless. Indeed I have heard personally it said to me and read others online say it over and over that they dislike Sony but feel they have to use them. On fredmiranda's site it's a common refrain among Sony users that they dislike the camera's UI and ergonomics etc but put up with it for the lens choice from third parties - that's a very common theme and has been for several years though I realise that's only a small sampling of users.

Canon had total domination some years back and now is having to fight. Actually this is good for consumers but even if you don't realise it I assure you that Canon themselves are fighting tooth and nail against Sony, the kind of money that has gone into R&D and manufacturing is astronomical, Canon has really pulled out all the stops for the R5 and R6 models, literally billions of dollars has been poured into all this. Moreover huge sums are being put into the R&D and manufacturing for such lenses by the likes of Cosina, Sigma and Tamron. 

I am a big Canon fan but I put it to you that when the management of not only Sony, Sigma, Tamron, Cosina, Zeiss and indeed Apple all think that the days of totally walled gardens are gone and one might as well embrace the modern world, I think Canon might be better off considering it too.


----------



## mjg79 (Aug 27, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> And losing even more money on every similar Sigma lens bought instead of the Canon counterpart.



Alternatively of course it might mean the sale of another Canon R5 camera - with a higher profit margin and shorter lifespan before replacement than the lens instead of Sony getting that sale.


----------



## mjg79 (Aug 27, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> What about the Atomos collaboration?
> 
> What about Red who sell EF and RF mount option cameras and paid the licensing fees to do so correctly?
> 
> It seems when it makes sense to Canon they do work with third parties.


Years ago people online claimed that Canon partnered with Zeiss for the ZE lenses to make sure they would work perfectly. It was always stated with great confidence by many on the photograph-on-the-net forums but searching now I can't find anything official about it. Thinking about it I am surprised Zeiss would produce such lenses without being certain no issues would be thrown up later on - does anyone know any more?


----------



## unfocused (Aug 27, 2021)

mjg79 said:


> In fairness to Canon I think the "walled garden" approach made sense in the 80s and 90s...Well the world has changed...


I must have missed something. I've owned Sigma, Tamron and Tokina lenses. They have all worked fine with Canon cameras. Are you really just complaining about what you perceive as the slow pace of RF mount third party lenses? Perhaps you are conflating the third party manufacturers' priorities with yours?


----------



## mjg79 (Aug 27, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I must have missed something. I've owned Sigma, Tamron and Tokina lenses. They have all worked fine with Canon cameras. Are you really just complaining about what you perceive as the slow pace of RF mount third party lenses? Perhaps you are conflating the third party manufacturers' priorities with yours?



None of those companies has made a single RF mount lens yet while particularly Sigma and Tamron are producing huge numbers for Sony E mount.

As for why - nobody can seem to agree. Sony has made it very easy for third parties to make fully compatible lenses without reverse engineering them. Sigma is working at full capacity to meet demand for their E-mount lenses so perhaps once things calm down they will reverse engineer the Canon RF mount as they once did with EF mount, time will tell. Generally speaking it is better to have something officially licensed with the full specifications rather than reverse engineering though.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 27, 2021)

mjg79 said:


> Years ago people online claimed that Canon partnered with Zeiss for the ZE lenses to make sure they would work perfectly. It was always stated with great confidence by many on the photograph-on-the-net forums but searching now I can't find anything official about it. Thinking about it I am surprised Zeiss would produce such lenses without being certain no issues would be thrown up later on - does anyone know any more?


Yes Zeiss 100% paid Canon, in the lens reference numbers assigned by Canon for lens recognition and DPP corrections the Zeiss lenses have their own number and show in EXIF as Zeiss lenses. Sigma, Tokina, Tamron et al don't.

Other third parties piggyback off an older lens number and 'fool' the body into thinking it has a Canon lens mounted. This can cause issues if auto correction is set to on and results in banded rings.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 27, 2021)

mjg79 said:


> ...Apple all think that the days of totally walled gardens are gone and one might as well embrace the modern world...


Again, I must be missing something. When you go into Best Buy, how many non Apple computers can you find using the Apple IOS? When you go shopping for smart phones, how many other manufacturers are using the Apple IOS? Honest question, because I don't really follow computer or phones, but I was under the impression that if you want to use an Apple system, you pretty much need an Apple brand. Does Dell, Asis, HP etc. make computers using Apples IOS?


----------



## unfocused (Aug 27, 2021)

mjg79 said:


> None of those companies has made a single RF mount lens yet while particularly Sigma and Tamron are producing huge numbers for Sony E mount.
> 
> As for why - nobody can seem to agree...


So, if no one can agree on why, then why do you assume it is Canon's fault.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 27, 2021)

mjg79 said:


> As recently as 2020 (in a market I know is fast changing) Sony remained the leader in mirrorless sales with Canon growing fast.


Sony leads in full frame MILCs. Far more APS-C MILCs are sold than FF and Canon leads there (the EOS M line is the best-selling MILC line globally), 44% of the ILC market is DSLRs and Canon leads there. You can deeply segment the market in many ways. Leica is the global market leader for MILCs with brand names starting with the letter "L" so good for them!



mjg79 said:


> Canon had total domination some years back and now is having to fight.


They have always had to strive to maintain market leadership, and have done so successfully. Sony has gained market share in recent years mainly at the expense of Nikon.



mjg79 said:


> I am a big Canon fan but I put it to you that when the management of not only Sony, Sigma, Tamron, Cosina, Zeiss and indeed Apple all think that the days of totally walled gardens are gone and one might as well embrace the modern world, I think Canon might be better off considering it too.


Even Apple thinks the days of the walled garden are gone? That's news to the world.








Apple's 'walled garden' walls will get even higher with iOS 14, iPadOS 14 and MacOS Big Sur


The tech giant is building long-requested features into iOS 14, iPadOS 14 and MacOS Big Sur that tie the devices together, giving people fewer reasons to try competing options.




www.cnet.com





Since there's no walled garden, I guess the US Senate are just clueless in their attempt to legislate a breach in those walls.








U.S. Senate bill would force Apple to destroy their walled garden, allow third-party app stores


The new Senate bill, the Open App Markets Act, would let consumers select different third-party app stores for their mobile devices.…




macdailynews.com





Here's the thing...when you are blatantly wrong on several points, your credibility suffers and it becomes easier to dismiss your arguments entirely.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Aug 27, 2021)

jd7 said:


> DN = digital native (ie designed for mirrorless)
> 
> I'm not sure about DG. Sigma has DC lenses, which I think stands for digital (or maybe DSLR?) compact, which are for APS-C sensor cameras. Regarding DG, the G definitely indicates full frame, and I think the G may have even been similar to Canon's L at one time, so DG refers to the G series for full frame in the DSLR/digital age.
> 
> ...


You dont know. My point is proven. LOL.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 27, 2021)

RayValdez360 said:


> You dont know. My point is proven. LOL.


I believe your point was that Canon's nomenclature makes sense, whereas Sigma's does not. I notice that you didn't answer my question: what does RF stand for?


----------



## RayValdez360 (Aug 27, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> I believe your point was that Canon's nomenclature makes sense, whereas Sigma's does not. I notice that you didn't answer my question: what does RF stand for?


*Re-Imagined Focus*


----------



## mjg79 (Aug 27, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sony leads in full frame MILCs. Far more APS-C MILCs are sold than FF and Canon leads there (the EOS M line is the best-selling MILC line globally), 44% of the ILC market is DSLRs and Canon leads there. You can deeply segment the market in many ways. Leica is the global market leader for MILCs with brand names starting with the letter "L" so good for them!
> 
> 
> They have always had to strive to maintain market leadership, and have done so successfully. Sony has gained market share in recent years mainly at the expense of Nikon.
> ...


A rather strange - and needless, as I said nothing even remotely personal or invidious - little diatribe. You make a few factual errors, you just need to grasp that the world is complex and there aren't always clear cut answers.

Just for the record with Apple, especially as someone else above is confused about it, yes, Steve Jobs was very clear at first that third parties would not be allowed to install apps on what we now call iOS devices - he saw the error of his ways quickly and abandoned that and there is zero chance of apple ever going back on that. There is also a wide range of made for iOS devices and accessories that Apple regulate and licence. Apple has now for a couple of decades pushed relentlessly for things like USB standards and anything other than proprietary cables - there are nuanced arguments about lightning etc.

All of the arguments you refer to with the US Senate etc are matters of nuance, how much Apple charge, how tightly they control it etc. Nobody (well except you it appears) disputes that Apple has allowed others in; the arguments are all about how it is done. What was that you said about credibility?? 

Your point about market segmentation is absurd. Sony became, from almost nowhere, the market leader in full frame mirrorless cameras ahead of both Canon and Nikon - to compare that to Leica saying they are number one beginning with L is silly - as you know. Full frame mirrorless is of huge importance to the future of photography - notably Canon also disagrees with you on that otherwise they wouldn't be pouring so many billions into competing in that market. As it happens Canon will likely overtake Sony, maybe even this year, but to diminish what Sony achieved is strange - you won't find one single business school that would take your position, to go from nowhere to market leader in a decade was an amazing achievement and worth studying and understanding. And I say that as someone who loathes Sony cameras.

I'm honestly lost as to why you're so worked up. Someone has a different opinion from you on the net - I would like to see some careful moves from Canon to embrace the new world of high quality third party lenses and you apparently don't share that hope. Fine. Will they do it? Who knows? I don't, and you - certainly - don't. They apparently did once before with Zeiss. Maybe they never will again.


----------



## mjg79 (Aug 27, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Again, I must be missing something. When you go into Best Buy, how many non Apple computers can you find using the Apple IOS? When you go shopping for smart phones, how many other manufacturers are using the Apple IOS? Honest question, because I don't really follow computer or phones, but I was under the impression that if you want to use an Apple system, you pretty much need an Apple brand. Does Dell, Asis, HP etc. make computers using Apples IOS?



Yes you are missing something, that being the huge markets of apps and accessories - both multi-billion dollar industries where Apple has openly embraced working with anyone who will adhere to certain high standards.

Indeed you can't get MacOS or iOS on non-Apple devices, it's not a complete free for all. But Apple has clearly moved to embracing third parties and charging them fees - it means two things - the consumer wins through there being more apps and there being more accessories and Apple gets a cut of the profits. Moreover in the early days it actually drove iphone's success. Apple even took out billboard ads showing off how many apps were available on what we now call iOS.

Could Apple be more open? Maybe. Are they greedy with fees? Maybe. Would being more open mean they got lower quality? Maybe. But on the - huge - issue of Apps on iOS devices Apple is crystal clear they support and embrace third parties building them and want them to succeed.

Is this the best approach? Well who can say. Apple has become the most valuable company in history so I think readers here shouldn't be quite so quick to dismiss the approach of carefully embracing some third parties. Will it work for Canon? Nobody knows. Is it necessary? Almost certainly not - I think Canon can be number one without outsiders. But I think the questions could be asked - and this was all I said which has seemed to upset some here - a) would Canon possibly make more money from having a platform that had wider appeal through third party support? b) would we as consumers benefit from a small number of carefully selected partnerships with third parties like Voigtlander and Sigma? II think the answer to those is "quite possibly" but I concede nobody can know for certain.


----------



## mjg79 (Aug 27, 2021)

unfocused said:


> So, if no one can agree on why, then why do you assume it is Canon's fault.



I didn't say anything about fault - but while Sony has been open in recent years that they are sharing their mount with some third parties who in turn agree to certain demands, Canon has not made any such announcement. So while nobody here knows whether Canon is doing this or that right now it's a fair guess they aren't. Otherwise I would expect we would already have seen some Sigma RF lenses. Canon quickly got to second place behind Sony last year in full frame mirrorless and will probably either this year or in the coming years get ahead of Sony - it will be a big market for Sigma to exploit, indeed the biggest in mirrorless. 
Maybe Canon has already got an agreement with Sigma of course, we can't know, but it seems unlikely.
If I had to actually make a guess I think Canon won't do it, won't go for working with third parties. In my view that's a shame - some of the lenses especially from Voigtlander and Sigma are great and some are unique. You couldn't pay me to shoot Sony, I really dislike their cameras but still I will have a bit of envy, especially of lenses like the Voigtlander 40mm 1.2.


----------



## mjg79 (Aug 27, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Yes Zeiss 100% paid Canon, in the lens reference numbers assigned by Canon for lens recognition and DPP corrections the Zeiss lenses have their own number and show in EXIF as Zeiss lenses. Sigma, Tokina, Tamron et al don't.
> 
> Other third parties piggyback off an older lens number and 'fool' the body into thinking it has a Canon lens mounted. This can cause issues if auto correction is set to on and results in banded rings.


That's fascinating - thanks for the info. At the time everyone was - with some justification - moaning about canon's wide angles and like many others I bought the Zeiss 21 ZE. It was great and caused me to buy more Zeiss lenses later. Given their price and quality it would have been unthinkable really for them to have been some cobbled together reverse engineered lenses so it does all ring true.

I wonder if that predates Sony and Zeiss being so close. Maybe that would make such a situation harder today. As a landscape photographer I would love to have a Loxia 21mm on a modern Canon RF camera.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 27, 2021)

mjg79 said:


> There is also a wide range of made for iOS devices and accessories that Apple regulate and licence.


Canon has agreements with Red and Zeiss (lens-related), and most recently with TEAC (new hotshoe accessories), so they’re clearly able and willing to enter agreements with 3rd parties where and when it makes sense to them. Seems that what makes sense to you does not make sense to Canon. It’s a reasonable ask, but honestly I doubt they care (from a business standpoint, there’s no reason to) about a minuscule number of photographers wanting to use a Voigtlander 40/1.2 on an R body.



mjg79 said:


> Your point about market segmentation is absurd. Sony became, from almost nowhere, the market leader in full frame mirrorless cameras ahead of both Canon and Nikon - to compare that to Leica saying they are number one beginning with L is silly - as you know. Full frame mirrorless is of huge importance to the future of photography - notably Canon also disagrees with you on that otherwise they would't be pouring so many billions into competing in that market.


The ‘starts with L’ was intentionally absurd, of course.

Of course Sony became the market leader in FF MILCs ‘out of nowhere’ – literally. They launched the a7 years before Nikon and then eventually Canon entered the segment. It’s easy to be and remain #1 in the absence of competition. Sony had the most popular line of APS-C MILCs, the NEX series. It’s no coincidence that soon after Canon entered the MILC market with the EOS M, Sony abandoned the NEX line and released the first FF MILC, creating a new market segment. When the 800 lb gorilla enters the room, you look for the exit door. Sony abandoned DSLRs because they couldn’t compete with Canon and Nikon. As you suggest, it is possible that Canon will overtake Sony in the FF MILC segment as well. I wonder where Sony will run at that point? Whatever happened to the Vaio, anyway?


----------



## Frankonian (Aug 28, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> What about the Atomos collaboration?
> 
> What about Red who sell EF and RF mount option cameras and paid the licensing fees to do so correctly?
> 
> It seems when it makes sense to Canon they do work with third parties.


*Great point @ privatebydesign.*
As I don`t use Video, I don`t know much about this cooperation. It`s maybe the exception to the rule 

I see it from a *still photographers working professional perspektive*, who bought an additional R6 in february.
It feels really nice to work with the body ergonomics wise. But the *new CR3-Raw-files are extreme time consuming to properly develop in Adobe Lightroom an Camera Raw*, i think because of missing camera standard adobe profiles? I really think of continue using the old fashion 5d iv, as the CR2-raws are much better/ faster to develop in Adobe Products.
If you chat with canon support, they tell you: "use DPP, our own software, where not involved in anything going on with third party (Adobe) software".
I just donwloaded sample Sony A7iii Raw-files from DPP, they were much better usable in Lightroom from start on.

The next problem is the actual *RF-lens portfolio*:
if you want to/ have to carry around 3 to 4 actual professional grade RF-primes in your camera bag, you need a body like Arnold Schwarzenegger (in the 1980s) and wallet like Donald Duck.
If you use the small & quite affordable lenses like 1.8/35RF and 2.0/85 RF they are due to body roboustness, the chose of motors, AF-Speed not professional grade lenses.
There is really a big whole in Canons RF-lens lineup in the mid-range. And no third party options like in Sony System.
Even the old EF-Primes like 50/1.2 and 85/1.4 were years behind the competition like sigma art series.

One more thing is build in *overheating* *timer* with video.

I stay with my opinion: *Canon fears everything, that is not labled: "Canon".*
Even my R6 regularly shut down, when used with the original battery grip (with original, new batteries), with the message
"are batteries original ones?" / "*y*/n?" "The inserted batteries seem to be not from Canon. Your camera will shut down, because of safety reasons".
No roblem with the same (new and original) batteries without the battery-grip..


----------



## SNJ Ops (Aug 28, 2021)

AJ said:


> Sigma and Tamron are producing Sony e-mount lenses. I imagine there must be some agreement with Sony, or else they've reverse-engineered without legal repercussions. These third-party manufacturers are not (yet) producing lenses for Canon. And that's too bad. I think more people would jump to Canon or else upgrade from EF to R if a good selection of third-party lenses were available.. I think Canon is at a competitive disadvantage to Sony in this regard.
> Food for thought: Imagine if Microsoft only allowed their own software to run on Windows...


Sony is a major shareholder of Tamron, its also why Tamron doesn’t make any lenses that directly compete with any of Sony’s offerings.

Sigma are free to make what they want on emount aside from teleconverters as I understand it.


----------



## rbr (Aug 30, 2021)

I have been using the R5 as my main camera for almost a year now. I must say that my favorite lenses that I have used with it have been my Sigma ART wide angle lenses in EF mount. It has been such a joy to open up the RAW files and see such amazing corner to corner brilliance. If I did switch to Sony, having all those Sigma DG DN options amongst other 3rd party lens makers would be a huge selling point for Sony to me. Another is that Sony 200-600. Sony definitely has the lens option advantage right now. I have been using Canon for 25 years starting with the EOS 1N in the 90's, but right now I am very reluctant to put any more money into that system while looking at what the Sony system offers.


----------



## Frankonian (Aug 30, 2021)

rbr said:


> I have been using the R5 as my main camera for almost a year now. *I must say that my favorite lenses that I have used with it have been my Sigma ART wide angle lenses in EF mount. It has been such a joy to open up the RAW files and see such amazing corner to corner brilliance. If I did switch to Sony, having all those Sigma DG DN options amongst other 3rd party lens makers would be a huge selling point for Sony to me. Another is that Sony 200-600. Sony definitely has the lens option advantage right now. I have been using Canon for 25 years starting with the EOS 1N in the 90's, but right now I am very reluctant to put any more money into that system while looking at what the Sony system offers.*


that is 100% my opinion. That`s the same with my Canon EF-Lens-Lineup. I`ve sold my Canon EF 50 1.2 L for the Sigma 50mm 1.4 ART, which is much, much better. Also the Sigma 24-35/2.0 and 20/1.4 are highlights of my Canon EF-quipment.
As it looks at the moment, we won`t see attraktive third party offerings for Canon RF-System from the other high-end makers, except Canon. 
Even Samyang seem to leave the Canon RF-system.


----------



## alexKan (Aug 31, 2021)

Frankonian said:


> that is 100% my opinion. That`s the same with my Canon EF-Lens-Lineup. I`ve sold my Canon EF 50 1.2 L for the Sigma 50mm 1.4 ART, which is much, much better. Also the Sigma 24-35/2.0 and 20/1.4 are highlights of my Canon EF-quipment.
> As it looks at the moment, we won`t see attraktive third party offerings for Canon RF-System from the other high-end makers, except Canon.
> Even Samyang seem to leave the Canon RF-system.


that is also my opinion, 3rd party lens give me more alternative for lens and those 3rd lens allows me to stay with the Canon system.
3 rd party lens actually helps Canon to earn more, e.g. customer tens to invest more like body , attractive Canon's lens, battery, flash etc.
If Canon open RF-mount with license fee canon will earn much more. 
system without 3rd party lens actually force customer to left the system , e.g. Sony's a-mount vs Canon EF-mount and Nikon F-mount.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 31, 2021)

alexKan said:


> If Canon open RF-mount with license fee canon will earn much more.


Have you done a detailed financial analysis of this? It’s almost certain that Canon has done so, and they have decided not to open up the system to main 3rd party lenses.

As is regrettably common here, forum members think they know more than a global, multibillion dollar company with the data to support these sorts of decisions. 



alexKan said:


> system without 3rd party lens actually force customer to left the system , e.g. Sony's a-mount vs Canon EF-mount and Nikon F-mount.


If users are being forced to leave Canon’s system, how is Canon still gaining market share? Probably because those who _need_ to use a 3rd party lens comprise a group that’s insignificant at the scale of the ILC market…and therefore irrelevant to Canon.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 31, 2021)

rbr said:


> I have been using the R5 as my main camera for almost a year now. I must say that my favorite lenses that I have used with it have been my Sigma ART wide angle lenses in EF mount. It has been such a joy to open up the RAW files and see such amazing corner to corner brilliance. If I did switch to Sony, having all those Sigma DG DN options amongst other 3rd party lens makers would be a huge selling point for Sony to me. Another is that Sony 200-600. Sony definitely has the lens option advantage right now. I have been using Canon for 25 years starting with the EOS 1N in the 90's, but right now I am very reluctant to put any more money into that system while looking at what the Sony system offers.


I know the Sony 200-600 is a popular lens from the birding websites I look at. Surprisingly, I have never seen one on my many trips in the UK. The most popular is Canon with the 100-400mm II and increasingly the RF 100-500mm, followed by Nikon with the 500mm PF and 200-500mm. I see fewer Sigma and Tamron 150-600mm than in the past. Personal anecdotal evidence, of course, but I suspect there is a larger market for lighter lenses.


----------



## degos (Aug 31, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Yes Zeiss 100% paid Canon, in the lens reference numbers assigned by Canon for lens recognition and DPP corrections the Zeiss lenses have their own number and show in EXIF as Zeiss lenses. Sigma, Tokina, Tamron et al don't.



I've just checked and the 1DX2 correctly recognises the Tamron 15-30 and 45.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 31, 2021)

degos said:


> I've just checked and the 1DX2 correctly recognises the Tamron 15-30 and 45.


Interesting....


----------



## bergstrom (Sep 22, 2021)

Need someone to make an alternatie to theTamron 15-30 that firmware can be installed connecting the lens to desktop, instead of buying a docking tap-on station.


----------



## bergstrom (Sep 22, 2021)

Has anyone called the cops on Canon for daylight robbery? i.e RF lens prices.


----------



## snappy604 (Sep 22, 2021)

bergstrom said:


> Has anyone called the cops on Canon for daylight robbery? i.e RF lens prices.


pro-grade stuff in any field commands a rather steep premium. Canon is the leader overall in cameras still and the new RF series mostly comes out as L which is pro-grade... meaning really ridiculous prices (I cringe too)... they do have some cheaper RF now, but of course everyone wants the best.

this is not unique to canon.. and yes I have several Sigma


----------



## canonmike (Sep 22, 2021)

entoman said:


> Definitely. Canon will have everything patented, and will try hard to protect lucrative sales of their RF exotica, so anyone treading on their toes could find themselves in trouble. I can't see Canon releasing the RF protocols, at least not until they have filled out their range of RF glass. There's little benefit to Canon if they make the mount available to all comers. Some of the Chinese brands might be willing to take the gamble, as it's in their culture to "copy and improve", but Tamron and Sigma are selling lenses in other mounts as fast as they can produce them, so I think they'll be in no great hurry to produce RF.


Sometime ago, I saw a post by a Canon Japan rep that stated competitive lens Mfgs are exactly that, competitors and to my knowledge, Canon has never shared their tech data with 3rd party lens Mfgs., which leaves reverse engineering their only alternative. . Competitors are not making knock offs or illegal copies. They're just trying to make EF and RF compatible lenses. I don't see the legal restrictions or patents being the problem here. If they were, you wouldn't see Samyang/Rokinon producing RF mount lenses, already. I feel sure that Canon hasn't shared any RF tech data with them.


----------



## canonmike (Sep 22, 2021)

bergstrom said:


> Has anyone called the cops on Canon for daylight robbery? i.e RF lens prices.


Nobody is happy about the high prices but it's a sign of the times. Have you seen grocrery, gas, car, etc. pricing lately?? Our choices are to just suck it up and pay it or just don't buy it.


----------



## snappy604 (Sep 23, 2021)

btw sigma EF lenses work just fine on the R5 with the adapter.. I've several, no issues on any of them


----------



## entoman (Sep 23, 2021)

canonmike said:


> Sometime ago, I saw a post by a Canon Japan rep that stated competitive lens Mfgs are exactly that, competitors and to my knowledge, Canon has never shared their tech data with 3rd party lens Mfgs., which leaves reverse engineering their only alternative. . Competitors are not making knock offs or illegal copies. They're just trying to make EF and RF compatible lenses. I don't see the legal restrictions or patents being the problem here. If they were, you wouldn't see Samyang/Rokinon producing RF mount lenses, already. I feel sure that Canon hasn't shared any RF tech data with them.


Almost certainly, Samyang are just continuing to use the EF protocol (reverse-engineered) and have simply changed the dimensions of the mount.

There is of course no reason why Tamron, Sigma and others can’t do the same. My guess is that they are delaying release of such lenses for 3 reasons:

they want to design *new* lenses to take advantage of the shorter flange distance.
they can barely keep up with demand for their existing lenses.
Supply chain issues (chips etc)
I’m also guessing that Samyang/Rokinon, in common with Venus Optics, are at the moment primarily targeting the low demand niche markets, i.e. they are trying to plug the gaps not covered by other brands, hence RF.


----------



## entoman (Sep 23, 2021)

snappy604 said:


> btw sigma EF lenses work just fine on the R5 with the adapter.. I've several, no issues on any of them


Yes, **any** EF lens should work fine on RF mount cameras, using the Canon adaptor. At least, that’s the theory.

In practice, some will acquire focus as rapidly as Canon glass, but others will be slower and more hesitant, due to heavy elements and/or less efficient focus motors.

Tracking subjects across the frame, at a near-constant distance, should theoretically be as good as with Canon glass, as it is dependent on Canon’s tracking algorithms, rather than an ability to refocus. However, AF and tracking both utilise cross-talk between chips in the *lens* as well as the body, so third party lenses may not track quite as efficiently, especially when using eye-AF.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 23, 2021)

entoman said:


> ...My guess is that they are delaying release of such lenses for 3 reasons:
> 
> they want to design *new* lenses to take advantage of the shorter flange distance.
> they can barely keep up with demand for their existing lenses.
> Supply chain issues (chips etc)



I'd add a fourth to that list: Cost/Benefits

Sigma offers a mount exchange service that allows you to send in a Canon mount lens and have it changed to Nikon mount (for example). That implies that everything beyond the mount is identical in their lenses. I don't know if that will be possible with mirrorless lenses. If, as you suggest, they may want to, or need to, design lenses specific to the RF mount then they may be waiting until they see sufficient demand to justify the expense. Canon's R cameras seem to be selling well, but we really don't know how well. Selling a third party lens that is specifically designed for one mount means a lot fewer sales than one lens that can be used across all the brands.


----------



## snappy604 (Sep 23, 2021)

entoman said:


> Yes, **any** EF lens should work fine on RF mount cameras, using the Canon adaptor. At least, that’s the theory.
> 
> In practice, some will acquire focus as rapidly as Canon glass, but others will be slower and more hesitant, due to heavy elements and/or less efficient focus motors.
> 
> Tracking subjects across the frame, at a near-constant distance, should theoretically be as good as with Canon glass, as it is dependent on Canon’s tracking algorithms, rather than an ability to refocus. However, AF and tracking both utilise cross-talk between chips in the *lens* as well as the body, so third party lenses may not track quite as efficiently, especially when using eye-AF.


that's always been the case.. likely due to reverse engineering.

however I use a sigma 150-600C just fine on the R5 for birding with the adapter.. and I use the sigma 30mm ART, 20mm ART, etc without any tracking issues. To be honest don't find it significantly slower than my RF 24-70 2.8L and that is one of the cringe worth prices.


----------

