# SIGMA to make a major RF mount announcement in the near future [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 12, 2020)

> I’ll say right off the top, SIGMA leaks have always been relatively unreliable. I don’t post a lot of SIGMA related rumors because of reliability concerns.
> I have been told by more than one unknown source, that SIGMA is readying an announcement that will address their plans for the RF mount.
> One of the sources claims that the Canon EOS R5 has “accelerated” SIGMA’s desire to get RF mount lenses to market sometime in 2021.
> The same source did say converting current ART series lenses to the RF wasn’t in the cards, and that SIGMA will have a “unique lineup” for the RF mount. I suspect there will be some overlap of focal lengths between the E mount and RF mount lenses.
> As always with anything [CR1], please take this with a grain of salt.



Continue reading...


----------



## Trey T (May 12, 2020)

If they do something better Art series, many will stop buying L lenses

A bit of competition is always good


----------



## YuengLinger (May 12, 2020)

I can't imagine AF algorithms are any easer with the Rf mount. But, YES, Canon needs some competition to keep them innovating, and to keep prices a little more reasonable.


----------



## Twinix (May 12, 2020)

Trey T said:


> If they do something better Art series, many will stop buying L lenses
> 
> A bit of competition is always good


Is Canon now open like Sony to give Sigma what they need with proper communication and software so that the Sigma can have equally good AF? If not I wont buy Sigma glass, no matter how good or cheaper it is. Thats almost just me though, and I wont likley buy more than a 24-105, tele like 100-400 or 70-200, a wide angle and maybe a fast prime. All for video. But yes, competition is always great.


----------



## usern4cr (May 12, 2020)

Having Sigma design lenses for RF would be spectacular for Canon users. It will actually help Canon itself (IMHO) since it will help jumpstart people into buying into the RF system from all the other systems or for 1st time users. It will put pressure on Canon to lower (in time) the cost of their great lenses, but the increased volume of sales will easily make up for it for them.

If Canon truly wants to give Sony a real race for the FF mirrorless crown, then this will help it happen. It will certainly help the Canon RF users pick the right lenses for their photo style since there will be additional choices at somewhat lower prices.


----------



## Antono Refa (May 12, 2020)

Trey T said:


> If they do something better Art series, many will stop buying L lenses





YuengLinger said:


> I can't imagine AF algorithms are any easier with the Rf mount.



My guess Sigma wants to mount its Cine lenses on RF, a market in which they could do without AF, or maybe start with EF AF in the first version and upgrade to RF AF later.

Canon might be testing 8K on RF stills body before taking it to the pro Cine line, and if Sigma would have proven 8K RF lenses when an RF Cine camera comes out, they'll have a nice lead.


----------



## Chaitanya (May 12, 2020)

Hoping to see some good Macros for RF from Sigma.


----------



## WilliamJ (May 12, 2020)

I’m hoping they come out with their own version of an f2 trinity of zooms, at a more reasonable price!

The thing Sigma has always struggled with in their lenses is autofocus performance with DSLR phase detect systems, but they work far better in live view. In my opinion, Sigma optics, build quality and pricing with the reliable on-sensor autofocus of RF bodies would be an absolute WIN, especially if they come out with f2 zooms!


----------



## usern4cr (May 12, 2020)

WilliamJ said:


> I’m hoping they come out with their own version of an f2 trinity of zooms, at a more reasonable price!
> 
> The thing Sigma has always struggled with in their lenses is autofocus performance with DSLR phase detect systems, but they work far better in live view. In my opinion, Sigma optics, build quality and pricing with the reliable on-sensor autofocus of RF bodies would be an absolute WIN, especially if they come out with f2 zooms!


I'd be surprised if they come out with f2 zooms at first. They'd be really big, heavy and expensive and so there won't be a big demand for them. What I can see them doing is coming out with a lot of f2.8 and f4 zooms that will compete on price first, then on size/weight and unique mm ranges, as well as various primes that compete similarly but with faster f# ranges.


----------



## Architect1776 (May 12, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



Why would Sigma limit themselves with converting E mount to RF mount.
They have the ability to take good advantage of the large diameter of the RF and do some incredible stuff like Canon is doing that will not work with the very small diameter of the E mount. Then they could migrate that to the Nikon mount I would imagine fairly easily seeing as Canon is a bit thicker.


----------



## LSXPhotog (May 12, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> I can't imagine AF algorithms are any easer with the Rf mount. But, YES, Canon needs some competition to keep them innovating, and to keep prices a little more reasonable.



All of my Sigma lenses autofocus flawlessly in Live View and using my EOS R, so it shouldn't be an issue. They were downright unreliable on my DSLRs.


----------



## LSXPhotog (May 12, 2020)

Sigma...we need to talk...you have created some spectacular lenses since the start of your "Global Vision" in 2013. Now that you've gotten autofocus figured out with mirrorless cameras, let's work on the SIZE of your lenses. The 24mm, 35mm, and 50mm are about perfectly sized, but then you completely lost your minds with the 85mm, 105mm, 135mm, and now with your new 35mm f/1.2 and mirrorless 24-70. LOL

Sigma's goal should be to create more compact lenses for the RF system...but, sadly, when we look at their new Sony lenses, I think we're in for a lot more monster lenses.


----------



## melgross (May 12, 2020)

I highly doubt that people will stop buying L lenses because Sigma decides to move into the R mount. This was never a problem for Canon’s EOS lenses, and it won’t be a problem for them here. People who buy ART lenses either buy them because Canon doesn’t produce that lens, and that‘s what people want, or because they’re cheaper, meaning that people who buy the cheaper lens likely wouldn’t have bought the more expensive L lens anyway. No matter how you slice it, I don’t see more than a small number not buying an L lens because of Sigma.

this will simply expand what’s available in areas that Canon isn’t competing too heavily in. Canon’s new R lenses are state of the art, and Sigma will have a hard time duplicating the quality, both optical and mechanical.


----------



## usern4cr (May 12, 2020)

Architect1776 said:


> Why would Sigma limit themselves with converting E mount to RF mount.
> They have the ability to take good advantage of the large diameter of the RF and do some incredible stuff like Canon is doing that will not work with the very small diameter of the E mount. Then they could migrate that to the Nikon mount I would imagine fairly easily seeing as Canon is a bit thicker.


Yes! If they did a 100% new optical design for the RF mount, with it's wide open 20mm flange distance, then you use the identical optical design with a mere 4mm extension of their barrel so it'd fit the Nikon Z mount with it's wide open 16mm flange distance. And the Leica L mount is exactly 20mm, so that the identical optical design can now be used for the L mount Alliance of Leica/Panasonic/Sigma. That's 1 new series of optical designs to fit 3 of the 4 main FF mirrorless mounts (excluding Sony FE which they're already heavily supporting). Come to think of it, wouldn't they just use their existing L-mount optical designs and add them (& new ones) to fill the RF lens selections? That would be the obvious thing.

I'm sure Sigma would be aware of this, and that's probably exactly their plan.

Come to think of it, I always wondered why Canon would choose a 20mm flange distance for their new RF mount when they could have used a shorter one (like Nikon did) to get even more options in lens design with lenses closer to their sensor. Now I think I may have the answer - Maybe they did it to match the L-mount so 20mm flange designs would work for the 3 major flange mounts! Wow.


----------



## SecureGSM (May 12, 2020)

Architect1776 said:


> Why would Sigma limit themselves with converting E mount to RF mount.
> They have the ability to take good advantage of the large diameter of the RF and do some incredible stuff like Canon is doing that will not work with the very small diameter of the E mount. Then they could migrate that to the Nikon mount I would imagine fairly easily seeing as Canon is a bit thicker.


Where do you read that Sigma is converting E mount to RF mount? Art glass to RF mount it says.


----------



## Architect1776 (May 12, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> Where do you read that Sigma is converting E mount to RF mount? Art glass to RF mount it says.



It doesn't say it.
Just that at times old crap is recycled and this is a real opportunity for Sigma to really do great things and not worry about the little E mount but look at other mounts that offer far more flexibility to produce modern designs instead of the antiquated limits faced with that little E mount which is even smaller than the Canon M mount.


----------



## YuengLinger (May 12, 2020)

LSXPhotog said:


> All of my Sigma lenses autofocus flawlessly in Live View and using my EOS R, so it shouldn't be an issue. They were downright unreliable on my DSLRs.


Fascinating!


----------



## jvillain (May 12, 2020)

I agree. I have no focus issues with Art glass on the EOS R. Then again I only ever had minor issues running them on the 80D either with the exception of one copy of the 50-100 that was just plain flawed.


----------



## usern4cr (May 12, 2020)

Architect1776 said:


> It doesn't say it.
> Just that at times old crap is recycled and this is a real opportunity for Sigma to really do great things and not worry about the little E mount but look at other mounts that offer far more flexibility to produce modern designs instead of the antiquated limits faced with that little E mount which is even smaller than the Canon M mount.


Sigma came up with some native FF E mount optical designs because Sony is the biggest snowball (marketwise) rolling down the hill. But the E mount flange distance is 18mm, so any true (narrow diameter) native E mount specific design could not be directly transferred to the 20mm flange distance of the RF mount unless the last lens poked 2mm further out the back (which may or may not be dangerous), so it might have to be re-designed, anyway. They have lots of wide diameter 20mm flange designs and can make more of them so that it's the only reasonable way I see for them to make lenses for the RF system (and Nikon Z mount and L mount alliance).


----------



## IcyBergs (May 12, 2020)

Sigma is going to make RF lenses?

Real shocker


----------



## Tony Bennett (May 12, 2020)

I came to the comments to see who writes "I won't buy any Sigma until they release the 14-400 1.4 Art. Otherwise any lens they release is no good." 
I know it will be here.


----------



## [email protected] (May 12, 2020)

Four observations:

1) My Sigma Art lenses have been as reliable as my L lenses, and generally sharper, with some exceptions (35mm L II). I've relied on Canon L for supertelephoto, where Sigma's 500 f/4 isn't as good; and on Canon's 100mm L macro, which still stands unbeaten for the sorts of use I have (lots of hand-held, natural light). I think characterizing Sigma Art lenses as generally unreliable is an outdated impression. If you have a Sigma lens built after 2017 with current firmware, it's hard to beat. 

2) I've VERY much enjoyed having EF-mount Sigma glass in particular, as I've been able to use quite a number of them on Canon EF, Canon RF, Sony and Panasonic, adapting as appropriate. Before Canon developed decent eye AF, I was able to use Sony, for instance. I see Sigma as the one common language. This is why it'll be easy to move back to Canon with the R5 without much expense. Interestingly, if they're developing RF-specific lenses, these won't have that benefit. Depending on what's on offer, *I may stick with EF mount lenses, even for new ones*. I had this same dilemma when considering whether to by the Sigma 35mm f/1.2, which was available only in Sony. Which I did, and I don't regret, but will likely sell to help finance an R5 body.

3) I suspect that even if the Sigma lenses use the RF bayonet, they'll still use the EF-mount AF protocols, as these are ones Canon can't monkey with. The RF protocols appear to be quite protectable, as the hardware is now in place for encryption and other mechanisms to really shut out third parties. I don't see much incentive for Canon to deliberately allow Sigma into the tent, and it appears to be no longer the case that third parties can reverse-engineer signals sent in the clear. 

4) Sigma has probably been designing like fiends for their upcoming full frame bodies using the L-mount. With nearly identical critical dimensions as RF, they'll have a library of designs ready to go, even as their body efforts have been pretty drastically delayed (even before the virus matter). I suspect that the lenses that come out for RF will be unique, but then will come out redundantly in parallel in L-mount soon after.


----------



## Pixel (May 12, 2020)

Sigma prime lenses are VERY good. I’ve enjoyed having them. Sigma zooms, however, are not on the level of Canon zooms by a long shot. The long end of the focal length’s sharpness is not acceptable in my opinion. Also, I realize the price point is fantastic for what we’re getting, I wouldn’t mind paying a tad more if that’s what it takes to make them lighter.


----------



## Go Wild (May 12, 2020)

Well, it makes perfect sense and it´s not the question of "will it be possible", it´s the question "when it will happen". Canon market always have been very profitable to sigma lenses. They could have some trouble "finding out" the mount secrets but of course somehow the brand will launch RF lenses. They didn´t did it yet because of the lack of competition between the canon mirrorless vs Sony, so they invest in Sony market. With the upcoming R5 and R6 the game will change and they know the new Canon´s will blow the market!


----------



## ColinJR (May 12, 2020)

This is (potentially) great news! I would absolutely consider sigma lenses for both professional use but even more so all those lenses I want but can’t really justify spending top dollar on, like fast primes. I would love it if they brought the smaller, Sony variant 14-24 wide angle zoom to RF. I used to have the EF mount version and it was way too big and heavy for my EOS R, but it was sharp as hell and had a nice character that differs from Canon’s usual L look.


----------



## Larsskv (May 12, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Yes! If they did a 100% new optical design for the RF mount, with it's wide open 20mm flange distance, then you use the identical optical design with a mere 4mm extension of their barrel so it'd fit the Nikon Z mount with it's wide open 16mm flange distance. And the Leica L mount is exactly 20mm, so that the identical optical design can now be used for the L mount Alliance of Leica/Panasonic/Sigma. That's 1 new series of optical designs to fit 3 of the 4 main FF mirrorless mounts (excluding Sony FE which they're already heavily supporting). Come to think of it, wouldn't they just use their existing L-mount optical designs and add them (& new ones) to fill the RF lens selections? That would be the obvious thing.
> 
> I'm sure Sigma would be aware of this, and that's probably exactly their plan.
> 
> Come to think of it, I always wondered why Canon would choose a 20mm flange distance for their new RF mount when they could have used a shorter one (like Nikon did) to get even more options in lens design with lenses closer to their sensor. Now I think I may have the answer - Maybe they did it to match the L-mount so 20mm flange designs would work for the 3 major flange mounts! Wow.



I hope Sigma doesn’t fall for the temptation to recycle lenses made for the narrow 46,1mm Sony E-mount, but instead comes up with new designs that take advantage of the larger Canon RF (54mm) and Nikon Z (55mm) mounts, which can result in significant (smaller) size advantages. Sigma will undoubtably make such lenses available for the 51,6mm L mount, though.


----------



## Andy Westwood (May 12, 2020)

Let’s hope Sigma is working on an RF mount, they must realise by now that Canon is serious about the R brand.

Competition for Canon in the lens market can only be a good thing for consumers and Sigma has a good reputation for making quality lenses.


----------



## SteveC (May 12, 2020)

Tony Bennett said:


> I came to the comments to see who writes "I won't buy any Sigma until they release the 14-400 1.4 Art. Otherwise any lens they release is no good."
> I know it will be here.



No it won't, because that lens would be unsatisfactory, it has to be a 10-800 f/1.2, bare minimum, or it's crap.


----------



## Baron_Karza (May 12, 2020)

I won't buy any Sigma until they release the 14-400 1.4 Art. Otherwise any lens they release is no good.


----------



## peters (May 12, 2020)

Trey T said:


> If they do something better Art series, many will stop buying L lenses
> 
> A bit of competition is always good


Though I must say the 50mm 1,4 Art is my favorite lense so far and one of the best 50mm lenses at the market =) (unless the super new 50mm rf)


----------



## Del Paso (May 12, 2020)

Baron_Karza said:


> I won't buy any Sigma until they release the 14-400 1.4 Art. Otherwise any lens they release is no good.


Fully agree!


----------



## usern4cr (May 12, 2020)

Larsskv said:


> I hope Sigma doesn’t fall for the temptation to recycle lenses made for the narrow 46,1mm Sony E-mount, but instead comes up with new designs that take advantage of the larger Canon RF (54mm) and Nikon Z (55mm) mounts, which can result in significant (smaller) size advantages. Sigma will undoubtably make such lenses available for the 51,6mm L mount, though.


I didn't realize that the L mount had a somewhat smaller diameter (51.6mm) than the Canon (54mm) and Nikon (55mm). I guess that Sigma would probably design the optics for all 3 to fit the L mount exactly and just adapt the rest to the mount & electronics as needed. That would still be close to an ideal design for the wider Canon (with same flange distance) and wider Nikon (with 4mm spacer added to the lens at the mount). If they think it's worth it for more design options, they could also design specifically for the Canon mount for those aimed at Canon & Nikon only. Either way Canon could get a near optimal design from them. Time will tell.


----------



## Tony Bennett (May 12, 2020)

SteveC said:


> No it won't, because that lens would be unsatisfactory, it has to be a 10-800 f/1.2, bare minimum, or it's crap.


Perfect.


----------



## Juangrande (May 12, 2020)

LSXPhotog said:


> Sigma...we need to talk...you have created some spectacular lenses since the start of your "Global Vision" in 2013. Now that you've gotten autofocus figured out with mirrorless cameras, let's work on the SIZE of your lenses. The 24mm, 35mm, and 50mm are about perfectly sized, but then you completely lost your minds with the 85mm, 105mm, 135mm, and now with your new 35mm f/1.2 and mirrorless 24-70. LOL
> 
> Sigma's goal should be to create more compact lenses for the RF system...but, sadly, when we look at their new Sony lenses, I think we're in for a lot more monster lenses.


Personally I’m only interested in fast primes and with the RF Mount we can finally get some really fast glass. I hope they continue but I see no reason that can’t implement both strategies as some photographers portability is more important.


----------



## dancan (May 12, 2020)

Everything what finally finds its way on the shelves is warmly welcome.


----------



## stetson628 (May 12, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> I can't imagine AF algorithms are any easer with the Rf mount. But, YES, Canon needs some competition to keep them innovating, and to keep prices a little more reasonable.



On my 5D Mark IV, I find my Sigma ART 50mm focuses just fine in Live-View, though it's very iffy in DSLR mode.I also have a Sigma 120-300mm Sport, and it does fine in AI Servo, but is iffy for one-shot in DSLR, but fine in Live-View. Since the RF mount is basically only Live-View, I think Sigmas will do fine. When the focusing is done directly from the image sensor data, rather than bouncing the signal down to a focusing sensor, it takes a lot of calibration out of the equation (except for instances where the focus shifts when the aperture is stopped down for the shot, as happened in one of Canon's own RF lenses).


----------



## Bennymiata (May 12, 2020)

I bet Sigma will sell a lot more RF lenses than L mount lenses.
Actually, I'm surprised it took Sigma so long to come out with M lenses and now RF lenses.


----------



## Accutance (May 13, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Sigma came up with some native FF E mount optical designs because Sony is the biggest snowball (marketwise) rolling down the hill. But the E mount flange distance is 18mm, so any true (narrow diameter) native E mount specific design could not be directly transferred to the 20mm flange distance of the RF mount unless the last lens poked 2mm further out the back (which may or may not be dangerous), so it might have to be re-designed, anyway. They have lots of wide diameter 20mm flange designs and can make more of them so that it's the only reasonable way I see for them to make lenses for the RF system (and Nikon Z mount and L mount alliance).



Well the L mount has a 20mm flange to focal distance , so chances are there'll be no problem with adapting the 14-24/2.8, 45/1.8 and 35/1.2 mirror lenses to RF. Similarly, all their FE versions of their DSLR primes could easily be adapted to RF (Canon's AF algorithm notwithstanding).

I'm guessing Sigma anticipated various mirrorless flange distances and gave themselves enough wiggle room without resorting to new optical designs.


----------



## Accutance (May 13, 2020)

Pixel said:


> Sigma prime lenses are VERY good. I’ve enjoyed having them. Sigma zooms, however, are not on the level of Canon zooms by a long shot. The long end of the focal length’s sharpness is not acceptable in my opinion. Also, I realize the price point is fantastic for what we’re getting, I wouldn’t mind paying a tad more if that’s what it takes to make them lighter.



Sigma 14-24 DG DN (e-mount) though.


----------



## navastronia (May 13, 2020)

Personally, I'm grateful for Sigma's new-ish 35/1.2 because it puts the heat on Canon to outdo them with their own RF version : )


----------



## dominic_siu (May 13, 2020)

Twinix said:


> Is Canon now open like Sony to give Sigma what they need with proper communication and software so that the Sigma can have equally good AF? If not I wont buy Sigma glass, no matter how good or cheaper it is. Thats almost just me though, and I wont likley buy more than a 24-105, tele like 100-400 or 70-200, a wide angle and maybe a fast prime. All for video. But yes, competition is always great.


RF Mount protocol is not open to third party companies means Sigma need to do reverse engineering in order to produce RF Mount lenses, I guess it would be just simply convert the EF Mount to RF Mount lenses by changing the lens barrel.


----------



## melgross (May 13, 2020)

[URL='http://i.viglink.com/?key=4d330a4797ea127575531d3ebd1213b0&insertId=1a5bc40907060187&type=H&mid=39082&exp=60%3ACI1C55A%3A1&libId=ka4mvzku0100y11i000DA3dfqq9y3&loc=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.canonrumors.com%2Fforum%2Findex.php%3Fthreads%2Fsigma-to-make-a-major-rf-mount-announcement-in-the-near-future-cr1.38568%2Fpage-2&v=1&iid=1a5bc40907060187&out=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ticketnetwork.com%2Fen%2Fp%2F4278720&ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.canonrumors.com%2Fforum%2Findex.php%3Fthreads%2Fsigma-to-make-a-major-rf-mount-announcement-in-the-near-future-cr1.38568%2F&title=(340)%20SIGMA%20to%20make%20a%20major%20RF%20mount%20announcement%20in%20the%20near%20future%20%5BCR1%5D%20%7C%20Canon%20Rumors&txt=%3Cspan%3ETony%20%3C%2Fspan%3E%3Cspan%3EBennett%3C%2Fspan%3E']Tony Bennett[/URL] said:


> Perfect.


I don’t think a 10-800 is feasible, a 10-650 maybe.


----------



## usern4cr (May 13, 2020)

dominic_siu said:


> RF Mount protocol is not open to third party companies means Sigma need to do reverse engineering in order to produce RF Mount lenses, I guess it would be just simply convert the EF Mount to RF Mount lenses by changing the lens barrel.


If Sigma only changed an existing EF lens of their design to RF by adding an extension to it, then I would have no interest in buying it. If they developed a new EF design into an RF lens (that didn't already exist as an EF lens) with a similar long extension, I still wouldn't buy it. If they just want to pass off a newly designed EF design as an RF lens, they might as well just sell it as a new EF lens so the EF people could buy it and let anyone use the EF-to-RF adapter for those putting it on a RF body.

Now I do acknowledge that others might buy a EF design with built in extension, but why would Sigma go to that trouble when they can just transfer their L-mount design straight over to RF? Then it's an updated design for 20mm flange and a wider mount with all the benefits. And they are the kings of pumping out new lens designs and selling them in all the mount versions, so why wouldn't they just pump them out as L-mount optical designs for L-mount/Canon/Nikon and continue the more restricted FF E mount designs for Sony?


----------



## dwarven (May 13, 2020)

Pixel said:


> Sigma prime lenses are VERY good. I’ve enjoyed having them. Sigma zooms, however, are not on the level of Canon zooms by a long shot. The long end of the focal length’s sharpness is not acceptable in my opinion. Also, I realize the price point is fantastic for what we’re getting, I wouldn’t mind paying a tad more if that’s what it takes to make them lighter.



Their newest 70-200mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Sports is basically on par with the Canon version.


----------



## dsut4392 (May 13, 2020)

The one lens I want most of all is a compact 50/1.4 with modern AF performance. It's not the cost, I simply have no interest in a behemoth like any of the recent fast 50s (Otus /Art/ RF50f1.2) as most of my photography is travel and hiking and the size and weight are prohibitive.
My old Sigma 50 f1.4 EX was my absolute favourite lens, but sadly one of the elements has become badly decentered and it's now unusable. I would buy an RF mount replacement in a heartbeat even with no optical improvements.


----------



## derpderp (May 13, 2020)

[URL='http://i.viglink.com/?key=4d330a4797ea127575531d3ebd1213b0&insertId=b79387d37f478d34&type=H&mid=39082&exp=60%3ACI1C55A%3A1&libId=ka4r40r90100y11i000DA2z04h4gb&loc=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.canonrumors.com%2Fforum%2Findex.php%3Fthreads%2Fsigma-to-make-a-major-rf-mount-announcement-in-the-near-future-cr1.38568%2Fpage-2&v=1&iid=b79387d37f478d34&out=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ticketnetwork.com%2Fen%2Fp%2F4278720&ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.canonrumors.com%2Fforum%2Findex.php%3Fthreads%2Fsigma-to-make-a-major-rf-mount-announcement-in-the-near-future-cr1.38568%2F&title=SIGMA%20to%20make%20a%20major%20RF%20mount%20announcement%20in%20the%20near%20future%20%5BCR1%5D%20%7C%20Canon%20Rumors&txt=%3Cspan%3ETony%20%3C%2Fspan%3E%3Cspan%3EBennett%3C%2Fspan%3E']Tony Bennett[/URL] said:


> I came to the comments to see who writes "I won't buy any Sigma until they release the 14-400 1.4 Art. Otherwise any lens they release is no good."
> I know it will be here.



Sorry to disappoint you, but I won't buy any Sigma until they release the 1-1000 1.0 Art. Otherwise any lens they release is no good.


----------



## geffy (May 13, 2020)

Sigma lenses have limited appeal i prefer tamron for my third party, i sold the old 400 and the fisheye ex, they were fine but compatibility and quality often went against sigma and their appeal seems to be pixel peepers and non shooters who never encounter real world use issues, in 4 years there will be a glut of parts lenses


----------



## WhereDoWeGoFrmHere (May 13, 2020)

24, 35, & 50 Art for RF would be of interest, assuming they focus accurately.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (May 13, 2020)

Praying for sensibly priced and sized RF lenses if they come to the party. Current RF line-up leaves me cold and so much dearer than their equivalent EF versions.


----------



## Twinix (May 13, 2020)

dominic_siu said:


> RF Mount protocol is not open to third party companies means Sigma need to do reverse engineering in order to produce RF Mount lenses, I guess it would be just simply convert the EF Mount to RF Mount lenses by changing the lens barrel.


Yep, then it is what I thought.


----------



## basketballfreak6 (May 13, 2020)

peters said:


> Though I must say the 50mm 1,4 Art is my favorite lense so far and one of the best 50mm lenses at the market =) (unless the super new 50mm rf)



My 50 Art lived on my 5D4 as my walk-around-go-everywhere combo until I picked up my M6II + 32mm f/1.4.

I've had my share of global vision lenses and only the 35 Art (which I bought on launch) had what I considered erratic auto focus; my 50, 135, 150-600 have all been great (and the 150-600 IQ has been nothing short of fantastic especially considering the price and zoom range).


----------



## degos (May 13, 2020)

Twinix said:


> If not I wont buy Sigma glass, no matter how good or cheaper it is. ... But yes, competition is always great.



So do you support competition or not?

Rewarding Canon for being dickish and refusing to license their lens communications protocols undermines competition. They'll never change unless people step up and buy Sigma.


----------



## padam (May 13, 2020)

Twinix said:


> Yep, then it is what I thought.


The EF-adapter works perfectly already, so it would be pointless to do, these will be mirrorless lenses with fly-by-wire electronic manual focus.

The real question is, are these going to be what they offer in other mounts or will they use the benefits of the diameter of the RF-mount. Maybe they will do some minor optimisations for the cover glass of the Canon sensors, but not more.


----------



## danski0224 (May 13, 2020)

Noooooooo....

Full frame Foveon first.


----------



## Twinix (May 13, 2020)

degos said:


> So do you support competition or not?
> 
> Rewarding Canon for being dickish and refusing to license their lens communications protocols undermines competition. They'll never change unless people step up and buy Sigma.



As said, competition is great. But for me, I'm going to go with the best option. I get what you mean, but I am not going to buy a Sigma just to say that they need to open up their protocols. I'm using my camera professionally for video where I need the best AF as possible. " step up and buy Sigma" is something you could do as a hobby, but not for paid work. Their paying to get the best quality, not your personal opinion about this technical and business topic. It's not life and death or something important in that way, so I will go for the best option.


----------



## Twinix (May 13, 2020)

padam said:


> The EF-adapter works perfectly already, so it would be pointless to do, these will be mirrorless lenses with fly-by-wire electronic manual focus.
> 
> The real question is, are these going to be what they offer in other mounts or will they use the benefits of the diameter of the RF-mount. Maybe they will do some minor optimisations for the cover glass of the Canon sensors, but not more.


What have I said that they should do you are claiming "so it would be pointless to do"?
All I confirmed for my self was that Canon dont share their protocols like Sony does (if I'm not wrong?).


----------



## melgross (May 13, 2020)

degos said:


> So do you support competition or not?
> 
> Rewarding Canon for being dickish and refusing to license their lens communications protocols undermines competition. They'll never change unless people step up and buy Sigma.


That would be a terrible reason to buy a Sigma product.

you do realize that Sony opened their lens mounts up because they had few lenses, and these were old, and not competitive? You realize that Sony had no traction in the DSLR market at all, no matter what they did, and that was why they went into the mirrorless market where there was no competition at all? No lenses at all there, so they had no choice but to open their mounts. They were desperate.

from their point of view, which for them is probably correct, both Canon and Nikon, with their tremendous lens lines, have no need to open their mounts. Why should they? No, not from your point of view, but from theirs. Both sell vast numbers of lenses. Third parties come to the game because of the large markets they represent. If they’re willing to make the effort, they can benefit from that. Most every lens manufacturer makes lenses for canon’s platform. They will for the R as well. They just need to see some traction. And Canon is setting a very high standard for others to follow. It won’t be easy for Sigma.


----------



## peters (May 13, 2020)

basketballfreak6 said:


> My 50 Art lived on my 5D4 as my walk-around-go-everywhere combo until I picked up my M6II + 32mm f/1.4.
> 
> I've had my share of global vision lenses and only the 35 Art (which I bought on launch) had what I considered erratic auto focus; my 50, 135, 150-600 have all been great (and the 150-600 IQ has been nothing short of fantastic especially considering the price and zoom range).



Jeah, I also had a lot of great experiences with Sigma lenses  the 18-35 Art is great on the 1DX II -> it can be used with the 1,3 crop 4k mode of the 1DX =) 
The 24 and 50mm Art are both super sharp with great colors. The 50mm is easily the lense I like best in my collection =)


----------



## slclick (May 13, 2020)

More lenses, more choices. Some could complain but we can't all be sane.


----------



## slclick (May 13, 2020)

WhereDoWeGoFrmHere said:


> 24, 35, & 50 Art for RF would be of interest, assuming they focus accurately.


Sigma has a couple different AF motors out there. The 35 is the worst, after they made the 24-35 they started using much better guts. AF speed and accuracy greatly improved. Caveat, this is for single shot, Servo not so much.


----------



## Malm (May 13, 2020)

Some of the Sigma Art lenses are the best available 'astro lenses' on the market. I'm very interested on what they will offer in the future as astro is a niche market. I worried for a while that the new Sigma mirrorless lenses might not be available for Canon boys


----------



## jedy (May 13, 2020)

Architect1776 said:


> Why would Sigma limit themselves with converting E mount to RF mount.


E mount Sigma lenses look suspiciously like they have an in built adapter as EF and F mounts don’t have this extension near the mount. I imagine this was easier for Sigma rather than attempting to create completely separate E mount lenses. L mount are the same so likely RF mount will be the same too.


----------



## navastronia (May 13, 2020)

slclick said:


> Sigma has a couple different AF motors out there. The 35 is the worst, after they made the 24-35 they started using much better guts. AF speed and accuracy greatly improved. Caveat, this is for single shot, Servo not so much.



The 35 focuses slowly, but as others have pointed out, it is perfectly accurate on mirrorless bodies.


----------



## Max TT (May 13, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



About time, this is excellent news. 

And I am so glad they aren't just converting existing lenses to have RF mount compatibility like Samyang and Rokinon do with their lenses across mounts.

To benefit from the RF mount's diameter and flange focal distance, they will have to design new lens from scratch. Glad they are taking this approach. 

Great great news! 



Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


----------



## usern4cr (May 14, 2020)

Max C said:


> About time, this is excellent news.
> 
> And I am so glad they aren't just converting existing lenses to have RF mount compatibility like Samyang and Rokinon do with their lenses across mounts.
> 
> ...


Yes, let's hope Sigma is willing to design lenses specifically for 20mm flange and 54mm diameter for Canon, which would also fit (with 4 mm spacer) the 16mm flange and 55mm diameter Nikon Z mount. That'd give them 100% of the design options that Canon has - and I hear they're pretty darn good at lens designs! 

But if they designed it for a 20mm flange and 51.6 diameter of the L-mount they'd only lose 2.4 mm in diameter and the flange distance would be the same, so I'm going to guess that they'll design it for their L-mount and fit that to the Canon & Nikon mounts as a cost savings with almost no difference in design options. 

Either way, let's hope they hurry up and have some great designs at reasonable cost/size/weight!


----------



## addola (May 14, 2020)

geffy said:


> Sigma lenses have limited appeal i prefer tamron for my third party, i sold the old 400 and the fisheye ex, they were fine but compatibility and quality often went against sigma and their appeal seems to be pixel peepers and non shooters who never encounter real world use issues, in 4 years there will be a glut of parts lenses



Same here. I like Tamron zoom lenses like my 24-70 f/2.8 f/2.8 VC, and in in some places they offer 5 or 6 years warranty. I think if Sigma started developing lenses for RF mount, Tamron will follow suit. Samyang has one AF lens for RF mount (AF 14mm F2.8 RF), but I am not sure how good the AF is, I think Dustin Abbot made a review about it on his YouTube channel.


----------



## slclick (May 14, 2020)

addola said:


> Same here. I like Tamron zoom lenses like my 24-70 f/2.8 f/2.8 VC, and in in some places they offer 5 or 6 years warranty. I think if Sigma started developing lenses for RF mount, Tamron will follow suit. Samyang has one AF lens for RF mount (AF 14mm F2.8 RF), but I am not sure how good the AF is, I think Dustin Abbot made a review about it on his YouTube channel.


To me, I cannot say one brand or the other. They both make a couple superior lenses which rival L glass yet have quite a few forgettable lenses as well. Some that stand out to me are the Tamron 35 1.4, Sigma 24-35, Sigma 40, Tamron 15-30....


----------



## sanj (May 14, 2020)

I used Sigma 85mm on a video shoot. The lens was sharp but made noises while servo focusing. Wish it did not as the noise would faintly get recorded on the talent's microphone.


----------



## drob (May 14, 2020)

Del Paso said:


> Fully agree!


It’s got to have IS too and be smaller than a 70-200.


----------



## justaCanonuser (May 14, 2020)

Trey T said:


> A bit of competition is always good


I agree, all of us customers profit from competition. That's why I wouldn't like Canon to give up their sensor and electronics production and reside to buy Sony sensors only like Nikon - and like many guys in many photog threads strongly wish. If Sony would dominate sensor production in the camera market that much, it'll slow down progress. Same with lenses, in particular Sigma and Tamron are important.


----------



## justaCanonuser (May 14, 2020)

sanj said:


> I used Sigma 85mm on a video shoot. The lens was sharp but made noises while servo focusing. Wish it did not as the noise would faintly get recorded on the talent's microphone.


Unfortunately one major problems of 3rd party lenses is AF reverse engineering. I had one Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 that pumped heavily, despite MA. A second copy was doing better, but phase detection AF never was that reliable than with a Canon lens. Fortunately, with the ML cameras, this is getting better now.


----------



## justaCanonuser (May 14, 2020)

LSXPhotog said:


> All of my Sigma lenses autofocus flawlessly in Live View and using my EOS R, so it shouldn't be an issue. They were downright unreliable on my DSLRs.


Same with my Tamron lenses, it's a problem of reverse engineering Canon's phase AF system - never works as well as the original. Same with Nikon's DSLRs btw.


----------



## justaCanonuser (May 14, 2020)

Architect1776 said:


> Why would Sigma limit themselves with converting E mount to RF mount.


Sony is a good example for how a handicap can drive progress. About a decade ago, they copied the fixed mirror from some of Canon's 1960/80 cameras for their SLT line, which restricted the number of photons hitting the sensor compared with mirror slappers. Plus, they created a smaller mount, also resulting in less light coming in. So this forced them to reduce the noise floor of their sensor tech more than the competition, say, Canon. Vice versa, if Canon now really would take advantage of their RF mount with a really competitive sensor tech, they really could beat Sony


----------



## justaCanonuser (May 14, 2020)

melgross said:


> this will simply expand what’s available in areas that Canon isn’t competing too heavily in. Canon’s new R lenses are state of the art, and Sigma will have a hard time duplicating the quality, both optical and mechanical.


Basically I agree, but regarding mechanical quality both Sigma and Tamron have really changed from "cheapo" to decent or very good, at least with their better lenses. We have some quite nice lenses for our Canon and Nikon gears, e.g. Sigmas 105mm f/2.8 macro is a well-made lens and optically substantially better corrected that Nikon's much more expensive 105mm macro.


----------



## usern4cr (May 14, 2020)

justaCanonuser said:


> Unfortunately one major problems of 3rd party lenses is AF reverse engineering. I had one Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 that pumped heavily, despite MA. A second copy was doing better, but phase detection AF never was that reliable than with a Canon lens. Fortunately, with the ML cameras, this is getting better now.


Just curious: You mentioned "MA" and "ML". What do these abbreviations stand for?


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (May 14, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Just curious: You mentioned "MA" and "ML". What do these abbreviations stand for?


MA = Micro Adjustment
ML = Mirrorless


----------



## melgross (May 14, 2020)

justaCanonuser said:


> Basically I agree, but regarding mechanical quality both Sigma and Tamron have really changed from "cheapo" to decent or very good, at least with their better lenses. We have some quite nice lenses for our Canon and Nikon gears, e.g. Sigmas 105mm f/2.8 macro is a well-made lens and optically substantially better corrected that Nikon's much more expensive 105mm macro.


That macro is old, so its not surprising the performance isn’t great. I have to admit that I haven’t used Sigma’s lenses that much, but from reports I read from some respected camera sites have it that the variability is a lot worse than Canon, which is the least Variable. Camera Rentals agrees with that. Canon’s mechanicals are up with the very best. Sigma’s can be pretty good. But the fact is that it requires expensive work, and cheaper lenses have to give way somewhere. I wouldn’t agree that Sigma is equal to Canon’s L series mechanically, and for the R series, they’ll have a really tough time equaling what Canon has done there.


----------



## fox40phil (May 14, 2020)

120-300 2.8 & maybe a 200-500 5.6 incoming?! ^^

Yes a new 150/180 Macro would be AWESOME! 

I also hope for some lighter lenses...those ARTs are really(!!) heavy and also the Sports one!


----------



## Kiton (May 14, 2020)

I agree, it is a different buy most often.
Somethings you may take a Sigma, others you would not consider anything buy a Canon lens.

When Fuji launched the X 100, people said it would cut in to Leica's sales. NOT!
Totally different buyer. There is room for both.




melgross said:


> I highly doubt that people will stop buying L lenses because Sigma decides to move into the R mount. This was never a problem for Canon’s EOS lenses, and it won’t be a problem for them here. People who buy ART lenses either buy them because Canon doesn’t produce that lens, and that‘s what people want, or because they’re cheaper, meaning that people who buy the cheaper lens likely wouldn’t have bought the more expensive L lens anyway. No matter how you slice it, I don’t see more than a small number not buying an L lens because of Sigma.
> 
> this will simply expand what’s available in areas that Canon isn’t competing too heavily in. Canon’s new R lenses are state of the art, and Sigma will have a hard time duplicating the quality, both optical and mechanical.


----------



## jolyonralph (May 15, 2020)

Trey T said:


> If they do something better Art series, many will stop buying L lenses



They need to do something better than Art series. They're nowhere close to modern L lenses in quality (except if you're one of those people who thinks quality=sharpness and nothing else.)

Anyway. Sigma won't do any genuinely unique RF glass. It will be something that they can also produce for E mount, L mount and Z mount, which means it has to be designed to lowest common denominators, meaning taking the largest flange distance of the three (RF/L, 20mm), the narrowest mount diameter (E mount, 46.1mm) - so compromise lenses.

With native glass being relatively expensive Sigma have a niche for producing relatively inexpensive lenses that fit nicely in quality between the inexpensive (eg non-L) native lenses and the professional (eg L lenses) native lenses for each mount. 

If you're not used to L glass you'll love them.


----------



## chrysoberyl (May 15, 2020)

Chaitanya said:


> Hoping to see some good Macros for RF from Sigma.



I would very much like to see a version of the sharp 70mm Art without the flaky focus-by-wire. I would buy a RF camera to go with such a lens. 2:1 magnification would be icing on the cake.


----------



## koenkooi (May 15, 2020)

chrysoberyl said:


> I would very much like to see a version of the sharp 70mm Art without the flaky focus-by-wire. I would buy a RF camera to go with such a lens. 2:1 magnification would be icing on the cake.



I'm going to bet that future Sigma lenses with AF will all be focus-by-wire, so I'm curious, do you object to f-b-w in general or just the flaky one in the 70mm?
The only f-b-w macro I have is the EF-M 28mm and manual focus on that is 'OK' for me. Not great, but not bad either.


----------



## Chaitanya (May 15, 2020)

chrysoberyl said:


> I would very much like to see a version of the sharp 70mm Art without the flaky focus-by-wire. I would buy a RF camera to go with such a lens. 2:1 magnification would be icing on the cake.


Personally I really would like to see RF native 150mm Macro or 180mm f4 Macro which can shoot beyond 1x mag ratio(even if there are limitation for AF I would buy them). Even I was put off by that wierd implementation of FbW on Sigma 70mm Macro. 
Given that Canon will just release a 100mm Macro initially with slowly bringing the niche 180mm and MP-E replacements for RF, we just have to see what Sigma really introduce for MILC market.


----------



## usern4cr (May 15, 2020)

Chaitanya said:


> Personally I really would like to see RF native 150mm Macro or 180mm f4 Macro which can shoot beyond 1x mag ratio(even if there are limitation for AF I would buy them). Even I was put off by that wierd implementation of FbW on Sigma 70mm Macro.
> Given that Canon will just release a 100mm Macro initially with slowly bringing the niche 180mm and MP-E replacements for RF, we just have to see what Sigma really introduce for MILC market.


I'd also like to see a longer RF macro, like 150 or 180mm or even longer, that could go to 2x instead of the normal 1x. And I'd prefer to see it in an L IS USM version.

Maybe if enough people mention this to Canon, they might consider making one!


----------



## Max TT (May 15, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> They need to do something better than Art series. They're nowhere close to modern L lenses in quality (except if you're one of those people who thinks quality=sharpness and nothing else.)
> 
> Anyway. Sigma won't do any genuinely unique RF glass. It will be something that they can also produce for E mount, L mount and Z mount, which means it has to be designed to lowest common denominators, meaning taking the largest flange distance of the three (RF/L, 20mm), the narrowest mount diameter (E mount, 46.1mm) - so compromise lenses.
> 
> ...



Ok Sigma head of development, thanks for letting us know


----------



## Trey T (May 15, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> They need to do something better than Art series. They're nowhere close to modern L lenses in quality (except if you're one of those people who thinks quality=sharpness and nothing else.)
> 
> Anyway. Sigma won't do any genuinely unique RF glass. It will be something that they can also produce for E mount, L mount and Z mount, which means it has to be designed to lowest common denominators, meaning taking the largest flange distance of the three (RF/L, 20mm), the narrowest mount diameter (E mount, 46.1mm) - so compromise lenses.
> 
> ...


For the existing Art and Contemp series, it depends on the work you do to determine which is more "feasible". You've made great points but I can divide up those points into at least 10 different conversations, but let's focus. The question we all have to answer is what is the most feasible setup for ourselves, w/ respective to our objectives.

For a less generic conversation, most of us know that telephoto zoom lens from Art and L for sporting purposes are not the same. The L zoom lenses are optimized for 1D body, utilizing the full 12v system, for consistent and precise performance. On the other end of the spectrum of performance, having to do portraits, Art is arguably the most feasible lens you can pair up w/ any modern EOS DSLR. Data have shown that Sigma have made a trend in improvement of performance and loved by many. It's a good argument to make that based on that upward trend, their design philosophy have the potential to be more "feasible" product in most aspects than L lenses.

I would love to hear you articulate about Sigma's future plans, based on your personal experience


----------



## slclick (May 15, 2020)

Max C said:


> Ok Sigma head of development, thanks for letting us know


There are a few Art lenses which are better in many ways than a few L lenses. Let's not start acting like L's are all Zeiss optics or Schneider builds.85% of the L line is magnificent but there are some average ones. And that's ok, they are still very, very good.

Sorry, not directed at you Max but the Head of Sigma Art Dev


----------



## jolyonralph (May 15, 2020)

slclick said:


> There are a few Art lenses which are better in many ways than a few L lenses. Let's not start acting like L's are all Zeiss optics or Schneider builds.85% of the L line is magnificent but there are some average ones. And that's ok, they are still very, very good.
> 
> Sorry, not directed at you Max but the Head of Sigma Art Dev



Glad to see the Sigma fans out in force. It's funny how defensive people get of the things they've spent their money on.

Now, the random focusing issues on the Sigma Art potentially go away when you're using mirrorless anyway, so it's likely that Sigma is going to be more reliable on RF than it ever was on EF mount - which has to be a good thing. 

There aren't any Sigma lenses that are better than any of the Canon RF L lenses - and it's RF lenses we're talking about here - and Canon RF L glass is killer.


----------



## slclick (May 15, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> Glad to see the Sigma fans out in force. It's funny how defensive people get of the things they've spent their money on.
> 
> Now, the random focusing issues on the Sigma Art potentially go away when you're using mirrorless anyway, so it's likely that Sigma is going to be more reliable on RF than it ever was on EF mount - which has to be a good thing.
> 
> There aren't any Sigma lenses that are better than any of the Canon RF L lenses - and it's RF lenses we're talking about here - and Canon RF L glass is killer.


I'm no Siggy fan, just realistic about certain lenses characteristics. But see, now you're editing/changing your post. You said L. . Just admit it, say you meant RF and be done. Next.No biggee.


----------



## jolyonralph (May 16, 2020)

slclick said:


> I'm no Siggy fan, just realistic about certain lenses characteristics. But see, now you're editing/changing your post. You said L. . Just admit it, say you meant RF and be done. Next.No biggee.



I'm also not trying to say that Sigma lenses are terrible, I have a couple of Sigma E mount lenses for APS-C that are inexpensive and very nice quality. I've had bad experiences with EF mount Sigma lenses before including Art lenses, which has made me wary of buying anything else from them until now, but I'm sure they will fill a useful gap for those who don't need and can't afford the RF L lenses from Canon (and count me in that group. Only one I have currently is the RF 24-105L)


----------



## chrysoberyl (May 16, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> I'm going to bet that future Sigma lenses with AF will all be focus-by-wire, so I'm curious, do you object to f-b-w in general or just the flaky one in the 70mm?
> The only f-b-w macro I have is the EF-M 28mm and manual focus on that is 'OK' for me. Not great, but not bad either.



The 70mm ART is my only experience with focus-by-wire. I otherwise love the lens, but wow - it takes so long to focus manually - it's so easy to go too far and then overcompensate and repeat! I miss too many insect shots because of this problem.

I appreciate your input on this subject!


----------



## Ozarker (May 17, 2020)

degos said:


> So do you support competition or not?
> 
> Rewarding Canon for being dickish and refusing to license their lens communications protocols undermines competition. They'll never change unless people step up and buy Sigma.


Yeah, because it is "dickish" to protect what one toiled and spent $ on to develop. You expect Sigma to be able to use the invention of others without paying into it? That, my friend, is the antithesis of competition. Let Sigma figure it out.

Are you a pro photographer? Would it be "dickish" for people to infringe on your copyrights? Would it be "dickish" of me to claim the use of your gear, car, or house just because I want them and can sublet them? Please. 

I get it. You want RF glass, but don't want to pay the Canon RF price. Instead, you want somebody like Sigma to make something cheaper for you and you don't care whether or not Canon has to pay for it. It doesn't matter that Canon engineers have families to feed. You just want a Sigma RF lens.


----------



## usern4cr (May 17, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Yeah, because it is "dickish" to protect what one toiled and spent $ on to develop. You expect Sigma to be able to use the invention of others without paying into it? That, my friend, is the antithesis of competition. Let Sigma figure it out.
> 
> Are you a pro photographer? Would it be "dickish" for people to infringe on your copyrights? Would it be "dickish" of me to claim the use of your gear, car, or house just because I want them and can sublet them? Please.
> 
> I get it. You want RF glass, but don't want to pay the Canon RF price. Instead, you want somebody like Sigma to make something cheaper for you and you don't care whether or not Canon has to pay for it. It doesn't matter that Canon engineers have families to feed. You just want a Sigma RF lens.


I agree with the gist of your post. I think that Canon ought to have the legal right to prevent other companies from making lenses to work with their bodies, unless they come to a legal agreement with Canon beforehand. I'm actually surprised that they don't have sufficient encryption to ensure only approved lenses will work with their bodies.

I have no problem with paying more for a company's product that does this if I think their product is still worth the higher price. In fact, that's the case as I type on a Mac right now from Apple, which took great pains to defend it's hardware and software from being overrun by others without their permission.


----------



## justaCanonuser (May 17, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Just curious: You mentioned "MA" and "ML". What do these abbreviations stand for?


Oh, sorry, I should return to my old habit not to use abbreviations: MA means "micro adjustment" (of the phase-detection autofocus system, that's the one working when you peer through the optical viewfinder), and ML means "mirrorless".


----------



## justaCanonuser (May 17, 2020)

melgross said:


> That macro is old, so its not surprising the performance isn’t great. I have to admit that I haven’t used Sigma’s lenses that much, but from reports I read from some respected camera sites have it that the variability is a lot worse than Canon, which is the least Variable. Camera Rentals agrees with that. Canon’s mechanicals are up with the very best. Sigma’s can be pretty good. But the fact is that it requires expensive work, and cheaper lenses have to give way somewhere. I wouldn’t agree that Sigma is equal to Canon’s L series mechanically, and for the R series, they’ll have a really tough time equaling what Canon has done there.


Yes, but when my wife tested both lenses some years ago, the Sigma was half the price of the Nikon and optically superior. 

I agree, I learned the same from lens rentals. Obviously Canon has massively improved the precision and test cycles in their production lines. Canon pro/prosumer gear is expensive, but you get quality. Based on our many issues with Nikon gear in the past decade, I can't say that about Nikon's quality.


----------



## jolyonralph (May 18, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> I agree with the gist of your post. I think that Canon ought to have the legal right to prevent other companies from making lenses to work with their bodies, unless they come to a legal agreement with Canon beforehand. I'm actually surprised that they don't have sufficient encryption to ensure only approved lenses will work with their bodies.



It would have been trivially easy to do this. All they needed to do was have some kind of security chip in RF lenses and, critically, the RF-EF adaptors that is required for autofocus communication.

This way non-electronic manual focus adaptors would still work fine, EF lenses (including Sigma) would still work fine with the RF adaptor, but if you wanted to have a native mount RF lens you'd need to licence the technology and get the chips from Canon. 


Part of the reason they didn't do this I suspect is related to a previous patent about a sensor that moves so that EF lenses could be mounted directly onto the mount without an adaptor. I suspect this was only ever thought about in terms of Cinema lenses though because it's a dumb idea in general. This would mean the RF mount has to support both EF and RF protocols natively, so any third party can now hack together a "native RF mount lens" by using the RF bayonet mount and the EF lens protocols from 1987.


----------



## usern4cr (May 18, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> It would have been trivially easy to do this. All they needed to do was have some kind of security chip in RF lenses and, critically, the RF-EF adaptors that is required for autofocus communication.
> 
> This way non-electronic manual focus adaptors would still work fine, EF lenses (including Sigma) would still work fine with the RF adaptor, but if you wanted to have a native mount RF lens you'd need to licence the technology and get the chips from Canon.
> 
> ...


I don't understand what patent you're talking about. My question about verifying lenses to work has to do more with protection from day 1. Why couldn't EF bodies already have had identification with the EF bodies back then? It's too late now to try to disallow non-Canon EF lenses to work with an RF body since so many Canon EF users will also have lots of non-Canon EF lenses.

But, they could have made RF bodies check for Canon (or authorized) RF lenses to work with the extended electrical protocols (I assume) they use. That would allow any old or new EF lens from anyone to work, but only Canon (or authorized) RF lenses to work. At least they'd protect that segment of lens development.


----------



## jolyonralph (May 19, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> I don't understand what patent you're talking about. My question about verifying lenses to work has to do more with protection from day 1. Why couldn't EF bodies already have had identification with the EF bodies back then? It's too late now to try to disallow non-Canon EF lenses to work with an RF body since so many Canon EF users will also have lots of non-Canon EF lenses.
> 
> But, they could have made RF bodies check for Canon (or authorized) RF lenses to work with the extended electrical protocols (I assume) they use. That would allow any old or new EF lens from anyone to work, but only Canon (or authorized) RF lenses to work. At least they'd protect that segment of lens development.











An EF & RF mount hybrid mirrorless camera in the works [CR2]


We have been told a couple of times now that a "pro" EOS R mirrorless camera that is in the works will have some kind of a hybrid EF/RF lens mount. So this ba




www.canonrumors.com





Back in the mid 1980s when EF was designed it would have been a significantly harder task to have protected lenses with any kind of protection chip. Anything non-trivial would have been both expensive to implement and, most importantly, would have had issues with power (chips in those days weren't the low power chips we have today.)

As far as we know the RF protocols are protected as you suggest. It's much easier now. Think about third party lenses as essentially EF lenses with EF-RF adaptors built in - the current "RF" lenses are exactly like this.

The next generation of RF lenses from Sigma etc are likely to work in the same way sending EF protocols (which Sigma finally understand after decades of doing it not quite right).

Canon seem not to care either way about third party lenses. They don't make it easy for third parties, but at the same time they haven't made it impossible.


----------



## AlanF (May 19, 2020)

Monopolies are generally considered as being bad for the consumer and most countries have set up legislation to prevent their worst effects. Monopolies are not illegal in the USA but the Sherman Anti-Trust act prevents them from abusing their power. We in the UK have a Competition and Markets Authority, a successor to the Monopolies Commission, to control monopolies and make sure there is competition. I think, and am willing to be corrected on this, it is illegal to prevent 3rd parties from making batteries, lenses etc to work with your products but you can make it difficult.


----------



## usern4cr (May 19, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> http://[URL]https://www.canonrumors.com/an-ef-rf-mount-hybrid-mirrorless-camera-in-the-works-cr2/[/URL]
> 
> Back in the mid 1980s when EF was designed it would have been a significantly harder task to have protected lenses with any kind of protection chip. Anything non-trivial would have been both expensive to implement and, most importantly, would have had issues with power (chips in those days weren't the low power chips we have today.)
> 
> ...


Thanks for the info. I can see Canon enjoying the benefit of unauthorized 3rd party lenses as long as it also increases Canon's overall market share and thus sales. I just wonder at what point lenses at a much lower price (& quality) can undercut Canon's high priced (premium quality) lenses to the point that Canon actually starts losing sales in general?


----------



## usern4cr (May 19, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Monopolies are generally considered as being bad for the consumer and most countries have set up legislation to prevent their worst effects. Monopolies are not illegal in the USA but the Sherman Anti-Trust act prevents them from abusing their power. We in the UK have a Competition and Markets Authority, a successor to the Monopolies Commission, to control monopolies and make sure there is competition. I think, and am willing to be corrected on this, it is illegal to prevent 3rd parties from making batteries, lenses etc to work with your products but you can make it difficult.


I do understand the problems with monopolies. But Canon is not a monopoly. There are many, if not dozens, of other camera manufacturers to choose from, and they are competing very aggressively against each other. But I don't know what the law actually is in the USA or in general (hence why I inquire here about it). I'd also like to say that I do enjoy having choices, and will choose what is best for me as others will do. I'd just like things to be fair to companies, as well as to their buyers. And "fair" is a very relative term to different people.


----------



## Ozarker (May 19, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Thanks for the info. I can see Canon enjoying the benefit of unauthorized 3rd party lenses as long as it also increases Canon's overall market share and thus sales. I just wonder at what point lenses at a much lower price (& quality) can undercut Canon's high priced (premium quality) lenses to the point that Canon actually starts losing sales in general?


Sacrifice market share in lenses just to say they win market share in bodies? Sounds suicidal to me.  Lenses are also sales.


----------



## usern4cr (May 19, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Sacrifice market share in lenses just to say they win market share in bodies? Sounds suicidal to me.  Lenses are also sales.


Well, I meant that maybe low price 3rd party lenses can cause many new people (who otherwise wouldn't buy into Canon) to buy Canon bodies and a 3rd party lens or 2 and maybe a Canon lens or 2. If there are enough of those new people to offset the existing Canon people who buy a 3rd party lens instead of a Canon lens, or buy Canon lenses at a forced lower price, then Canon will indeed make more money. I'm not saying Canon wants this, but maybe it's not worth waging all out war to avoid it.


----------



## AlanF (May 19, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> I do understand the problems with monopolies. But Canon is not a monopoly. There are many, if not dozens, of other camera manufacturers to choose from, and they are competing very aggressively against each other. But I don't know what the law actually is in the USA or in general (hence why I inquire here about it). I'd also like to say that I do enjoy having choices, and will choose what is best for me as others will do. I'd just like things to be fair to companies, as well as to their buyers. And "fair" is a very relative term to different people.


It would have a monopoly over what lenses you could use if it could prevent others from supplying lenses, and the law prevents that.


----------



## motofotog (May 19, 2020)

I think they getting 150-600 RF mount lens from Sigma will be a very good choice for wildlife and bird photographers


----------



## jolyonralph (May 19, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Monopolies are generally considered as being bad for the consumer and most countries have set up legislation to prevent their worst effects. Monopolies are not illegal in the USA but the Sherman Anti-Trust act prevents them from abusing their power. We in the UK have a Competition and Markets Authority, a successor to the Monopolies Commission, to control monopolies and make sure there is competition. I think, and am willing to be corrected on this, it is illegal to prevent 3rd parties from making batteries, lenses etc to work with your products but you can make it difficult.



This isn't the case here. Canon doesn't have a monopoly as Nikon, etc, also produce cameras. 

The issue is down to whether you can stop someone else using your mount technology. The answer is you can do it quite easily nowadays. The best way to do this is to have a process in the lens where it sends a specific string of text to the camera body such as "This lens contains proprietary code and technology which is the property of Canon Inc and can only be used by Canon and/or its licencees."

If the text is not word-for-word identical, the camera does an ERR XX and refuses to operate the lens. 

This way, the only way 3rd parties would be able to create a compatible lens would be to copy that text and transmit it, and it would be trivial for Canon to bring in an independent expert to court to show the company's lens was transmitting this copyrighted text.

Better still, Canon could write a haiku or similar, and publish it under their copyright, and send that as part of the string. Then their lens mount technology is protected by 75+ years copyright law rather than 12 years patent law.


----------



## usern4cr (May 19, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> This isn't the case here. Canon doesn't have a monopoly as Nikon, etc, also produce cameras.
> 
> The issue is down to whether you can stop someone else using your mount technology. The answer is you can do it quite easily nowadays. The best way to do this is to have a process in the lens where it sends a specific string of text to the camera body such as "This lens contains proprietary code and technology which is the property of Canon Inc and can only be used by Canon and/or its licencees."
> 
> ...


That's brilliant! I wonder if Canon ever cared to consider this?


----------



## AlanF (May 19, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> This isn't the case here. Canon doesn't have a monopoly as Nikon, etc, also produce cameras.
> 
> The issue is down to whether you can stop someone else using your mount technology. The answer is you can do it quite easily nowadays. The best way to do this is to have a process in the lens where it sends a specific string of text to the camera body such as "This lens contains proprietary code and technology which is the property of Canon Inc and can only be used by Canon and/or its licencees."
> 
> ...


I didn't say Canon had a monopoly over cameras. Read what I wrote and the subsequent posts. Canon like any other company are not allowed to have a monopoly over what accessories you use with their products and they cannot have patents to stop another company making such accessories. It is perfectly legal to reverse engineer software: U.S., Section 103(f) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) (17 USC § 1201 (f) - Reverse Engineering) specifically states that it is legal to reverse engineer and circumvent the protection to achieve interoperability between computer programs (such as information transfer between applications). So what you propose gives no legal protection whatsoever.


----------



## jolyonralph (May 20, 2020)

AlanF said:


> I didn't say Canon had a monopoly over cameras. Read what I wrote and the subsequent posts. Canon like any other company are not allowed to have a monopoly over what accessories you use with their products and they cannot have patents to stop another company making such accessories. It is perfectly legal to reverse engineer software: U.S., Section 103(f) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) (17 USC § 1201 (f) - Reverse Engineering) specifically states that it is legal to reverse engineer and circumvent the protection to achieve interoperability between computer programs (such as information transfer between applications). So what you propose gives no legal protection whatsoever.



This is the case in the US, but these rules are not the same worldwide.


----------



## koenkooi (May 20, 2020)

AlanF said:


> I didn't say Canon had a monopoly over cameras. Read what I wrote and the subsequent posts. Canon like any other company are not allowed to have a monopoly over what accessories you use with their products and they cannot have patents to stop another company making such accessories. It is perfectly legal to reverse engineer software: U.S., Section 103(f) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) (17 USC § 1201 (f) - Reverse Engineering) specifically states that it is legal to reverse engineer and circumvent the protection to achieve interoperability between computer programs (such as information transfer between applications). So what you propose gives no legal protection whatsoever.



Have a look at the "Right-to-Repair" efforts in the USA, there are a lot of exceptions and loopholes that manufacturers can use to prevent 3rd parties from making working accessories or replacement parts.

Anyway, I don't think Canon wants to actively prevent 3rd parties from making RF lenses, they just want you to buy all Canon gear.


----------



## AlanF (May 20, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> Have a look at the "Right-to-Repair" efforts in the USA, there are a lot of exceptions and loopholes that manufacturers can use to prevent 3rd parties from making working accessories or replacement parts.
> 
> Anyway, I don't think Canon wants to actively prevent 3rd parties from making RF lenses, they just want you to buy all Canon gear.


Could you please give an example of where and how they legally prevent 3rd party manufacturers making working accessories as I am intrigued how they have done it. The US Federal Trade Commission has ruled that manufacturers cannot automatically void a warranty because of the use of a 3rd party repairer or using third party components and the companies have to prove that the third party repairs or components are responsible for any subsequent failure.


----------



## koenkooi (May 20, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Could you please give an example of where and how they legally prevent 3rd party manufacturers making working accessories as I am intrigued how they have done it. The US Federal Trade Commission has ruled that manufacturers cannot automatically void a warranty because of the use of a 3rd party repairer or using third party components and the companies have to prove that the third party repairs or components are responsible for any subsequent failure.



I think this article describes such a thing: John Deere repairs.


----------



## usern4cr (May 20, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> I think this article describes such a thing: John Deere repairs.


I read the John Deer article - wow! I've been suggesting that Canon should be able to protect it's sale of new lenses or bodies from unwanted competition, but that had nothing to do with repairing what you already own. This new law apparently seeks to bypass voter initiatives that allow people to repair things (like farm equipment) they have bought. It protects details (eg software) not specifically mentioned in those initiatives so that the initiatives are effectively gutted to become worthless. That's a sad thing.


----------



## Ozarker (May 20, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> I read the John Deer article - wow! I've been suggesting that Canon should be able to protect it's sale of new lenses or bodies from unwanted competition, but that had nothing to do with repairing what you already own. This new law apparently seeks to bypass voter initiatives that allow people to repair things (like farm equipment) they have bought. It protects details (eg software) not specifically mentioned in those initiatives so that the initiatives are effectively gutted to become worthless. That's a sad thing.


I didn't read the whole article, but I assume it concerns insurance claims and warrantee claims. You know, kinda like some insurance companies replace bady panels with inferior parts after you've been in a wreck to save them money? That's my assumption, anyway. Farm Bureau is mainly an insurance company.


----------



## usern4cr (May 20, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I didn't read the whole article, but I assume it concerns insurance claims and warrantee claims. You know, kinda like some insurance companies replace bady panels with inferior parts after you've been in a wreck to save them money? That's my assumption, anyway. Farm Bureau is mainly an insurance company.


A snippet from the article:
"As an organization representing 2.5 million California agriculture jobs, the California Farm Bureau gave up the right to purchase repair parts without going through a dealer. Farmers can’t change engine settings, can’t retrofit old equipment with new features, and can’t modify their tractors to meet new environmental standards on their own."
Basically, farmers can't repair their own purchased equipment, and have to send everything in to the dealers to be fixed, and be without their equipment while that's being done.


----------



## AlanF (May 20, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I didn't read the whole article, but I assume it concerns insurance claims and warrantee claims. You know, kinda like some insurance companies replace bady panels with inferior parts after you've been in a wreck to save them money? That's my assumption, anyway. Farm Bureau is mainly an insurance company.


I read the article. What it says is that the present law prevents John Deere having the right to dictate who repairs their products so they have colluded with an organization to get around the law. It won't go unchallenged. In general, it's the consumer who needs protection against big business, not the other way around. Look how a company that pretends to be Mr Ethical and Reliable, Volkswagen, cheated emission controls and polluted the environment. Of course, I am not saying Canon does this, merely pointing out in a series of posts that they cannot prevent other companies making lenses, flashes, grips etc that work with Canon. They can make it difficult, but they can't stop it.


----------



## usern4cr (May 20, 2020)

I read the short article in Daily Camera News about Sigma's rumored development of RF lenses. The way it was worded led me to wonder if all of Sigma's DN (mirrorless short flange) designs are made for one optical set of parameters: (L-mount & Canon)20mm flange distance, and (Sony)46.1mm mount diameter? If so, this would be the cheapest/most efficient way they could do it. But it would mean that all their DN lenses were (optically)identical on Sony/L-mount/Canon/Nikon mounts, and that they were not "100% native" on a single one of them! More importantly it would mean that all of their DN lenses were throttled by the narrow APS-C mount diameter of Sony!

I don't know if this is true, or not. Does *anyone* know *for sure* if this is true or not?


----------



## Ozarker (May 21, 2020)

AlanF said:


> I read the article. What it says is that the present law prevents John Deere having the right to dictate who repairs their products so they have colluded with an organization to get around the law. It won't go unchallenged. In general, it's the consumer who needs protection against big business, not the other way around. Look how a company that pretends to be Mr Ethical and Reliable, Volkswagen, cheated emission controls and polluted the environment. Of course, I am not saying Canon does this, merely pointing out in a series of posts that they cannot prevent other companies making lenses, flashes, grips etc that work with Canon. They can make it difficult, but they can't stop it.


Besides that, there is absolutely no way Farm Bureau can force a private citizen to go through Farm Bureau. Farm Bureau is not a government agency. Perhaps Farm Bureau finances some of the equipment or loans and also insures? That is the only way Farm Bureau has any say in the matter at all. Farm Bureau is just an insurance company and lobbying group for the agricultural industry.


----------



## jolyonralph (May 25, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> I read the short article in Daily Camera News about Sigma's rumored development of RF lenses. The way it was worded led me to wonder if all of Sigma's DN (mirrorless short flange) designs are made for one optical set of parameters: (L-mount & Canon)20mm flange distance, and (Sony)46.1mm mount diameter? If so, this would be the cheapest/most efficient way they could do it. But it would mean that all their DN lenses were (optically)identical on Sony/L-mount/Canon/Nikon mounts, and that they were not "100% native" on a single one of them! More importantly it would mean that all of their DN lenses were throttled by the narrow APS-C mount diameter of Sony!
> 
> I don't know if this is true, or not. Does *anyone* know *for sure* if this is true or not?



It's true.

However, you need to remember one thing - the Sony narrow mount diameter just makes it harder to produce compact lenses. It's perfectly possible to create f/1.0 or better lenses for the Sony E mount - in fact any optical design that would originally have worked with the EF mount would work with an E mount. 

Sigma aren't going to produce a single product for a single mount - it's not worth their while. But yes, you're right, they are going to be compromise lenses. Hopefully, cheap though.


----------



## secant (Jun 12, 2020)

Canon RF 35/1.8 or Sigma 45/2.8? Or maybe the Samyang 45/1.8?


----------



## derekbez (Nov 17, 2020)

I'm guessing the CR1 rumour remained a rumour? Or did Sigma sneak out their roadmap without anyone reporting on it? Since it is now six months later, I would have thought there might be a little RF mount Sigma news at least.


----------



## Max TT (Nov 17, 2020)

derekbez said:


> I'm guessing the CR1 rumour remained a rumour? Or did Sigma sneak out their roadmap without anyone reporting on it? Since it is now six months later, I would have thought there might be a little RF mount Sigma news at least.


They keep pumping out updated E-Mount DG DN glass. Sigma RF glass at similar E-Mount prices would be a great option for many. And can make the transition to RF mount a whole lot more affordable for folks who want a step up from the STM lenses, though at the expense of in lens stabilization. Something I would gladly sacrifice for a lense the quality of their new 85mm DG DN 1.4 at $1200.


----------

