# EOS 5D Mark IV Compatibility Warning from Sigma



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 23, 2016)

```
<strong>From Sigma</strong></p>
<p>Thank you for purchasing and using our products.</p>
<p>Please find the following notes on the usage of SIGMA interchangeable lenses for EOS, when attached to Canon EOS 5D Mark IV that is released on September 8th.</p>
<ul>
<li>MO (Manual Override) function is unavailable with this camera (Full-time Manual function can be offered).</li>
<li>When using a SIGMA interchangeable lens for EOS, setting the corrections to [Disable] is recommended, as “Lens Correction” functions of the camera, such as Peripheral illumination correction, Chromatic aberration correction, Diffraction correction and Distortion correction are not supported.*</li>
</ul>
<p>* If those functions are activated, the performance of lenses may not be accurate.

* This is not only for EOS 5D Mark IV, but also for other camera bodies with the same function.</p>
<p>We appreciate your continued support for our company and products.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## mclaren777 (Sep 23, 2016)

We all know about the vignetting correction issue, but I've also noticed a chromatic aberration issue on my 85mm.

Like this notice says, we should probably turn off everything.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Sep 23, 2016)

Yup, a Sigma/Marl IV problem. Here's a video I watched yesterday where the 5D Mark IV's 4K video is compared to other brands. The author is clearly perplexed on the poor video resolution of the Canon 5D Mark IV. He states the Sigma lens used.
I wrote a comment that it may be a software issue and today Sigma puts out the warning.
I think the guy was having a serious bout of depression.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3n7Qvu1KMt8


----------



## douglaurent (Sep 24, 2016)

At Photokina I found out I have to send in some of my Tamron lenses (who don't work anymore with the 5D4 and 1DX2) so they can get a new firmware. Canon is trying hard to change protocols so third party manufacturers look bad - who in many cases now have better products or lenses with specs Canon doesn't offer. Thanks Canon.


----------



## Random Orbits (Sep 24, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> At Photokina I found out I have to send in some of my Tamron lenses (who don't work anymore with the 5D4 and 1DX2) so they can get a new firmware. Canon is trying hard to change protocols so third party manufacturers look bad - who in many cases now have better products or lenses with specs Canon doesn't offer. Thanks Canon.



That's what you get when they try to reverse engineer first party algorithms, which is why they sell at a discount. You got your benefit (lower price) up front, but the risk of future incompatibility was realized. At least they can get new firmware, rather than being bricked forever.


----------



## ScottyP (Sep 24, 2016)

It could be this is just new camera, new firmware, and Sigma just needs to slap new lens firmware together to cope. On the other hand, it does make you wonder if Canon deliberately wrote these conflicts into the 5D4 firmware in the first place to thwart the competiton. 

1.) Canon was rumored to have tried to buy Sigma and Sigma ultimately rebuffed them. In the 1960's, when Ford tried to buy Ferrari and part way into discussions Enzo Ferrari refused to sell, Ford went to war, developing new LeMans cars and Ford actually beat Ferrari pretty handily with the two amazing Shelby cars, and then the Ford GT 500. 

2.) Not to mention that, unlike the relationship between Ferrari and Ford, Sigma is actually competing in the same lens market as Canon, making lenses for Canon that are as sharp or sharper, for considerably less money. Such was obviously not the case in the Ford/Ferrari clash.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 24, 2016)

I find this interesting.....

10 years ago, with my Olympus DSLR, you could upgrade the lens firmware by mounting the lens on the camera, hooking up the USB cable between the camera and computer, and you could use a function in the image processing software to update camera or lens firmware.

It is sad that nobody else does this....


----------



## weixing (Sep 24, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> At Photokina I found out I have to send in some of my Tamron lenses (who don't work anymore with the 5D4 and 1DX2) so they can get a new firmware. Canon is trying hard to change protocols so third party manufacturers look bad - who in many cases now have better products or lenses with specs Canon doesn't offer. Thanks Canon.


Hi,
The problem with this theory is that old Canon lens still works on new Canon camera and new Canon lens still works on old Canon camera.

Have a nice day.


----------



## tpatana (Sep 24, 2016)

weixing said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > At Photokina I found out I have to send in some of my Tamron lenses (who don't work anymore with the 5D4 and 1DX2) so they can get a new firmware. Canon is trying hard to change protocols so third party manufacturers look bad - who in many cases now have better products or lenses with specs Canon doesn't offer. Thanks Canon.
> ...



Of course any 1st party product must work. I work for xbox. Any new accessory must work with any old console, and any new console must work with any old accessory. Normal business. We even try to make sure all 3rd parties work too, but 1st party products are priority of course.


----------



## quiquae (Sep 24, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> I find this interesting.....
> 
> 10 years ago, with my Olympus DSLR, you could upgrade the lens firmware by mounting the lens on the camera, hooking up the USB cable between the camera and computer, and you could use a function in the image processing software to update camera or lens firmware.
> 
> It is sad that nobody else does this....



Newer Canon bodies (from late 2012 or so onward) do let you upgrade lens firmware from the body. You just put the firmware on an SD card; no USB cable is required.
The feature is restricted to Canon lenses, though.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 24, 2016)

quiquae said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > I find this interesting.....
> ...


I liked the Olympus solution.... When you plugged in the camera to download images or to tether shoot, it automatically checked the firmware of the attached camera and lens. I was a very easy solution.....


----------



## douglaurent (Sep 24, 2016)

weixing said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > At Photokina I found out I have to send in some of my Tamron lenses (who don't work anymore with the 5D4 and 1DX2) so they can get a new firmware. Canon is trying hard to change protocols so third party manufacturers look bad - who in many cases now have better products or lenses with specs Canon doesn't offer. Thanks Canon.
> ...



I am talking about Tamron lenses that are one year on the market.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 24, 2016)

douglaurent said:


> weixing said:
> 
> 
> > douglaurent said:
> ...


Here is the problem.....

You are manufacturing second party lenses....
You want them to be compatible with A particular camera maker (Canon in this case, but the same is applicable to Nikon and Sony).....
You have no control over the algorithms or command set that Canon will use in the future....
You have no control over the focusing algorithms they will use in the future....
You have no control over the firmware data that is held in the camera....
You make a lens that is not field upgrade able.......
Canon changes something to make an existing lens work better with a new camera feature and your third party lens no longer works......

Your customer is screwed and mad at you. They have to send the lens back to the factory to get reprogrammed. It's not that your lens has a problem, it's your lens firmware? What do you do? WHAT DO YOU DO!!!!

Apparently, and after WAY! too long of a time, Tamron (and Sigma) came to the conclusion that they needed their lenses to be field upgradeable, and came out with the "Tap-in" console which now puts Tamron into the interesting position where the user can easily upgrade the firmware and can calibrate their lens (AFMA) BETTER than you can do with a Canon lens. 

Tamron and Sigma should have done this ten years ago. Heck, Canon and Nikon should have done this ten years ago. As soon as they saw Olympus doing it, the light bulbs should have come on and this should have become standard practice for everyone.


----------



## LoneRider (Sep 25, 2016)

So I wonder at what point you can make an anti-trust case against Canon?


----------



## Chaitanya (Sep 25, 2016)

LoneRider said:


> So I wonder at what point you can make an anti-trust case against Canon?



In this case you cannot file an antitrust lawsuit or one for fair trade with FTC. 3rd party manufacturers by reverse engineering are basically infringing on patents that Canon/Nikon or any other camera manufacturer had filed. So if anyone wants to file a lawsuit it would be Canon who might drag Sigma to court over infringement.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 25, 2016)

People just don't seem to get it!

THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY!

Canon design their lenses and cameras to be compatible. There is firmware in the lenses, there is firmware in the cameras. Canon designs them to be compatible. They do not design their camera firmware to be compatible with Sigma or Tamron (or anyone else's) lenses, they design it to be compatible with their own.

Every lens has unique characteristics. How many steps of movement does the focusing element have? How do those stops relate to distance? How fast do the elements move? How fast do they accelerate? How fast do they stop? What special modes and switches are there? Your camera is programmed with these values for known Canon lenses. Sigma and Tamron lenses report to the camera that they are "like a particular lens", but the match is not exact.... and that is one of the reasons why native lenses AF faster...

So how does a lens become a brick on a new body? Simple! Canon improved their AF algorithm to improve accuracy or to add in new features (a tracking mode), tested it on their lenses, found that it worked, and released it. With the data the Sigma or Tamron lenses provides to the camera, the algorithm fails and the lens does not work. 

The solution is to re-program the lens. This is why the Sigma dock and Tamron tap-in are needed. They should have been doing this 10 years ago and ALL of their lenses should be compatible. The fact that it has taken so long and so few lenses are compatible with the docks is a mark of shame against both Sigma and Tamron.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 25, 2016)

Third party lens makers have tried to reverse engineer their lenses to work with a proprietary protocol that Canon uses. 

Every time Canon makes a change to improve camera AF in a new model, some third party lenses will have issues. It is not Canon's responsibility to test their new cameras with 3rd party lenses, and engineer them to work on every lens that was ever produced. Canon has no control over the firmware in those lenses, nor any changes that the manufacturers may make.

Although its frustrating for 3rd party lens owners, it is almost a certainty that any autofocus changes made to Canon cameras will cause issues with one or more third party lenses. The third party lenses have dozens or even hundreds of different firmware configurations developed over the years. Its nearly impossible to make a camera work with all of them while improving it.


If you have a out of production third party lens that does not work, you are likely out of luck. I had five that became junk because no upgrade was available.

For that reason, users of third party lenses, flashes, triggers, etcetera should wait before upgrading to a new camera model. They can then get their firmware up to date, or, at least know what they are dealing with. Don't expect third party manufacturers to provide upgrades for old products that are long out of production.


----------



## Redline (Sep 26, 2016)

Not that I'll be buying the IV any time soon glad to have read this since I do love my Sigma lenses.

I mean aside from innovation I'm sure Canon knew for so long of the popularity of the 3rd party lenses not to mention both Tamron & Sigma have been upping their game hard. It only makes sense to offer features not available with other manufacturers and stay competitive.


----------



## tron (Sep 26, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Third party lens makers have tried to reverse engineer their lenses to work with a proprietary protocol that Canon uses.
> 
> Every time Canon makes a change to improve camera AF in a new model, some third party lenses will have issues. It is not Canon's responsibility to test their new cameras with 3rd party lenses, and engineer them to work on every lens that was ever produced. Canon has no control over the firmware in those lenses, nor any changes that the manufacturers may make.
> 
> ...


+1000 I have bad experience from this. So I got rid all I could. I still have a paper weight Tokina ATX 28-70 2.8 that I bought in 1993 and ceased working with 50E (1996 or 1997). I still regret I didn't sell it - I had also gotten 28-70 2.8L - when I had an offer that I didn't consider very good.


----------



## Alex_M (Sep 26, 2016)

I am a big Sigma supporter as I believe that their glass is great... until there is an issue (product developed fault, bad copy , etc.). My problem is that I cannot get Sigma Distributor to even understand what the issue is. I guess, same as with SONY support - they simply do not know good from bad. 
example:
I purchased brand new Sigma 50 1.4 Art for my daughter at very good price and decided to run lens calibration test to verify the lens AF and sharpness is at least good.
I quickly found that the lens required extreme AFMA out of the box and was outright soft even when calibrated.
I took the lens back to Sigma service centre and explained the problem. People at the SIGMA centre were very friendly and nice (as usual) and offered to adjust the lens while I was waiting.
I was advised, that the lens firmware was adjusted to focus correctly at x40 the Focal lenght ( 2.0m) distance. Great, and what about lens being really soft? It turns out, that they do not know how to verify the lens sharpness is within manufacturer's specs.. Seeing that the softness is likely was not adjusted, I requested the lens exchange and my request was granted.
I took the lens home, calibrated AF on Sigma USB dock at 04m, 0.7m, 1.5m and at infinity (10M)
Sharpness of this copy was good, but not excellent (Reikan Focal 1700 AF points vs 1900 AF points of my older Sigma 50 1.4 Art). 
While the lens focused very consistently for me and right on the money at the calibration points ( 0.4, 0.7, 1.5, 9-10m), I found that at 2.5 - 7 meters distance AF was off by a substantial margin. that cannot be adjusted on the dock. SO.. I took the lens back to Sigma service centre this morning and explained what was the issue and asked them to see if they can do something about it. I was given straight answer, that they never ever delt with anyone that demaned such a service and that there is nothing wrong with lens. it is good at all 4 focus distances and why I even brought this issue up. Sure, I was offered full refund that was accepted. Great )

So my point is : you can make Sigma Art lenses work.. with a little bit of luck. Great if you are lucky. I am not..










Redline said:


> Not that I'll be buying the IV any time soon glad to have read this since I do love my Sigma lenses.
> 
> I mean aside from innovation I'm sure Canon knew for so long of the popularity of the 3rd party lenses not to mention both Tamron & Sigma have been upping their game hard. It only makes sense to offer features not available with other manufacturers and stay competitive.


----------



## mpollock (Sep 26, 2016)

weixing said:


> douglaurent said:
> 
> 
> > At Photokina I found out I have to send in some of my Tamron lenses (who don't work anymore with the 5D4 and 1DX2) so they can get a new firmware. Canon is trying hard to change protocols so third party manufacturers look bad - who in many cases now have better products or lenses with specs Canon doesn't offer. Thanks Canon.
> ...



Interesting observation that new Canon lenses work with old cameras and old lenses work with new cameras - but not particularly relevant. For most lenses the camera body can query for identity. If a camera manufacturer were so inclined they would just need to put a line in the firmware such as

If (lens not made by Canon) then (do something subtly nefarious to cause problems with image)

As a software engineer I write code like this all the time - not for nefarious purposes, but to tailor software behavior to particular hardware configurations. In my opinion though, if 'foreign' lenses that I own stop working with Canon bodies, it makes it more likely that I will switch to another brand of camera body. I have multiple thousands of dollars invested in high-quality third party lenses, most of which offer features that Canon doesn't. If my lenses suddenly stopped working with my camera body I would no longer have a financial reason to stick with Canon since I would need to replace my lenses regardless of which camera body I chose.


----------



## mpollock (Sep 26, 2016)

tpatana said:


> weixing said:
> 
> 
> > douglaurent said:
> ...




Seems to me the real problem here is that Canon is applying lens corrections to an image for some lens other than what is attached to the camera. OK, they probably don't have correction info for Sigma lenses and even if they did I wouldn't expect Canon to apply them. But to modify images incorrectly seems to me to border on malicious. As a software engineer looking as some of the things Canon engineers do in firmware, I can assure you it's not due to incompetence on the part of Canon engineers that this image modification is happening.


----------



## mpollock (Sep 26, 2016)

Chaitanya said:


> LoneRider said:
> 
> 
> > So I wonder at what point you can make an anti-trust case against Canon?
> ...



Third party lensmakers aren't reverse-engineering Canon lenses - they are reverse engineering the communication API between the lens and the camera because Canon won't divulge it. There are numerous instances of anti-trust wins where a manufacturer of a device refuses to divulge API's to peripheral devices due to this lack of transparency.


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 26, 2016)

mpollock said:


> But to modify images incorrectly seems to me to border on malicious.



What do you mean by 'modify images incorrectly'? By using the word 'malicious' You seem to be suggesting that the Canon software is (at worst) saying 'Here is a sigma lens, boys. Let's screw it up' or (at best) 'I know this is not a Canon lens but let's mess with it anyway'. Why does Canon have any responsibility to say 'This is not a Canon lens so let's do something different' - you may _want_ them to, there is even merit to saying it may benefit them to draw in users of 3rd party lenses, but that is quite different to suggesting they are screwing things up on purpose 'maliciously'.
Maybe Sigma is not feeding the camera the right information for the camera to act in the right way, and that would be Sigma's responsibility. Maybe Sigma are selling you gear that is not compatible with the equipment it claims to be compatible with - and maybe _that _is what you should be hacked off about.
As I read it, Canon spend time and resource developing a product, you want to deprive Canon of the income to maintain that development yet demand they spend even more time and resource to give the same image quality to someone actively reducing their profits.

Be thankful. In some consumer products your warranty can be invalidated by even trying to use third party parts. Yet CaNikon are quite happy to support cameras where people use third party lenses.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 26, 2016)

mpollock said:


> Seems to me the real problem here is that Canon is applying lens corrections to an image for some lens other than what is attached to the camera. OK, they probably don't have correction info for Sigma lenses and even if they did I wouldn't expect Canon to apply them. But to modify images incorrectly seems to me to border on malicious. As a software engineer looking as some of the things Canon engineers do in firmware, I can assure you it's not due to incompetence on the part of Canon engineers that this image modification is happening.



3rd party lenses must use a Canon LensID to function with the camera, and sometimes that has unintended effects on the lens performance. The point is that while Canon can and should provide reasonable efforts to ensure forward and backward compatibility with their own products, they are under no obligation to undertake similar efforts to support 3rd party products. So, by purchasing 3rd party products you are taking on the risk that they will, at some point, cease to function properly with a newer camera. In some cases, the 3rd party vendor can modify the lens (kudos to Sigma for putting that in the hands of the users, vs. having to send a Tamron lens in for service).

I will note that sometimes Canon bodies lose full compatibilty with old lenses, as is the case for the peripheral cross-type AF points on the 40-60D and 7D which act as only single-orientation points with several Canon old lenses, all long-discontinued. However, since Tamron 'borrowed' the LensIDs for some of those old Canon lenses for several of their current lenses (including the popular 17-50/2.8 non-VC) those lenses were also affected. 

The only 'problem' that I see here is that you are ascribing malicious intent on the part of Canon, with apparently no evidence that such intent exists. Do you have such evidence?


----------



## gmon750 (Sep 26, 2016)

This is precisely why I don't buy 3rd-party lenses. I just don't get the ignorance of the people fabricating conspiracy theories or accusing Canon of purposely changing the algorithms just to brick the lenses. It's downright stupid.

It's not Canon's responsibility to verify 3rd-party lenses with work. What WILL happen is someone blaming Canon when their cheap Tamron/Sigma lens stops working on a given camera.

You want to save a few bucks, go right ahead. My time is worth more than dealing with the headaches that 3rd-party lenses have from time-to-time. Just don't go complaining to Canon when they improve their products and leaving you in the dust.


----------



## Zv (Sep 27, 2016)

Fantasy boardroom meeting at Canon: "Right guys we need to ensure EVERY 3rd party lens ever made plus lenses that will be made in future will work 100% with this brand new 5DIV. Let's redirect some time and resources to solve this pressing issue!."

Reality check - yeah that's not gonna happen. They're busy making sure their own stuff works properly first. Not that they don't give a toss about 3rd party. You still need a Canon body to operate that 3rd party lens, right? So why would Canon go about sabotaging their own equipment? And it's not like Canon is gonna hand over the keys to the AF kingdom either.


----------



## pixel8foto (Oct 31, 2016)

FWIW my Sigma 24, 35 and 50 1.4 Art lenses work just the same on my 5D4 & 1DXii as they did on my 5D3 and 1DX mk1. I don't use any in-camera processing. In a quick test, the same seems to be the case for my Tamron 15-30 2.8 VC and 150-600 mk1.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 31, 2016)

My Sigma 150-600mm C works perfectly with my 5DIV. But, then 3rd party software doesn't always on my Mac.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Nov 1, 2016)

gmon750 said:


> This is precisely why I don't buy 3rd-party lenses. I just don't get the ignorance of the people fabricating conspiracy theories or accusing Canon of purposely changing the algorithms just to brick the lenses. It's downright stupid.
> 
> It's not Canon's responsibility to verify 3rd-party lenses with work. What WILL happen is someone blaming Canon when their cheap Tamron/Sigma lens stops working on a given camera.
> 
> You want to save a few bucks, go right ahead. My time is worth more than dealing with the headaches that 3rd-party lenses have from time-to-time. Just don't go complaining to Canon when they improve their products and leaving you in the dust.



Exactly. It's a personal choice to save money however you choose and it's personal responsibility to accept that there is a risk and behave like an adult when things go awry. This has nothing to do with Canon. 

Where I have a little sympathy is the historic perspective of the 70's when a lens was hardware only. These companies had only to worry about their optics and mechanical mount etc. and they entered the market with that expectation and now life is more challenging. I commend them for persisting and competing but that doesn't change my initial statement. 

Jack


----------



## Josh Denver (Nov 1, 2016)

Canon in-camera lens corrections require knowing the lens defects in order to correct it! They take a long long time correcting sll Canon EF lenses, but they will never do that for third party lenses, or even be able to.

It's a pretty simple issue. You turn vigenette correction ON and the body asks what's the lens? How much should I correct? Lens says I don't know, I am an un-identified third party lens that was not added to the correction information list. Issue happens. 

Easiest way out is obviously turn it off. But you lose the benefit of having the new Canon feature if you want it. 

Again, no conspiracy theories. If Canon wanted to hurt the use of Sigma lenses on Canon bodies, there would have been zero Sigma lenses working on Canon bodies. In fact, there probably there would have been zero Sigma EF lenses in existence.


----------



## Antono Refa (Nov 1, 2016)

mpollock said:


> Seems to me the real problem here is that Canon is applying lens corrections to an image for some lens other than what is attached to the camera. OK, they probably don't have correction info for Sigma lenses and even if they did I wouldn't expect Canon to apply them. But to modify images incorrectly seems to me to border on malicious. As a software engineer looking as some of the things Canon engineers do in firmware, I can assure you it's not due to incompetence on the part of Canon engineers that this image modification is happening.



Sigma lenses identify themselves to the camera as if they were a similar Canon lens in order to get it working. I don't think Canon should go the extra mile to identify that the lens is actually a Sigma pretending to be a Canon and turn off lens correction.


----------

