# Sigma to announce 5 new lenses shortly, including a new 70-200mm f/2.8 OS Sport & 60-600mm f/4.5-6.3 OS Sport



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 18, 2018)

> Sigma is set to announce five new lenses ahead of Photokina according to Nokishita. We’re finally going to see the long rumored 70-200mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Sport and a 10x superzoom in the 60-600mm f/4.5-6.3 OS HSM Sport.
> 
> *New Sigma lenses to be announced:*
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 18, 2018)

Good to see, that Sigma keeps on pushing.

When I read about the 56mm f/1.4 DC DN (Mirrorless cameras) I start thinking about if and when Sigma will be able to deliver lenses for the RF mount. We'll see...


----------



## Otara (Sep 18, 2018)

60-600mm - getting there, but need 24-600mm to be true all rounder, prefer f4 constant as well. Nothing too silly.


----------



## jd7 (Sep 18, 2018)

A 28 f/1.4 and a 40 f/1.4 to with the already available 24 Art, 35 Art and 50 Art. Interesting! I will be intrigued to see what the two new lenses deliver!

For some reason I am a little disappointed the 56 f/1.4 is not EF mount.


----------



## criscokkat (Sep 18, 2018)

If they nail the focus 60-600 is great for well lit events. With usable ISO getting north of 1600 or even 3200 (with some light processing) being able to cover the whole field is great for non-pro shooters, and the 4.5 to 6.3 aperture isn't going to be that bad with a newer sensor.

It really comes down to how well and fast it focuses.


----------



## andrei1989 (Sep 18, 2018)

jd7 said:


> A 28 f/1.4 and a 40 f/1.4 to with the already available 24 Art, 35 Art and 50 Art. Interesting! I will be intrigued to see what the two new lenses deliver!
> 
> For some reason I am a little disappointed the 56 f/1.4 is not EF mount.



it's stated there that this is for mirrorless and DN is for crop sensors only, not FF

maybe you mean EF-M mount? that disapoints me as well...that sigma keep ignoring EF-M cameras with their DN line of lenses...


----------



## chrysoberyl (Sep 18, 2018)

jd7 said:


> A 28 f/1.4 and a 40 f/1.4 to with the already available 24 Art, 35 Art and 50 Art. Interesting! I will be intrigued to see what the two new lenses deliver!



I would like to see improved coma; better than the 20mm and 24mm Arts. I also hope that these will be lighter and have improved AF.


----------



## jd7 (Sep 18, 2018)

andrei1989 said:


> it's stated there that this is for mirrorless and DN is for crop sensors only, not FF
> 
> maybe you mean EF-M mount? that disapoints me as well...that sigma keep ignoring EF-M cameras with their DN line of lenses...


Sorry I guess I wasn’t clear. I realise the 56 is a DN lens and that means for mirrorless cameras - and that is why I am a little disappointed. I would have quite liked to see a 56 for full frame cameras. I know there is already a 50 Art but Nikon has its 58 and there are a few 55s around. I’ve often thought if I shot nikon I’d be keen to give that Nikon 58 a go. And yes, I realise 58 isn’t much different from 50!


----------



## AlanF (Sep 18, 2018)

Otara said:


> 60-600mm - getting there, but need 24-600mm to be true all rounder, prefer f4 constant as well. Nothing too silly.


You have to go to a Panny or a Sony for an f/4 24-600mm equivalent....
The problem with the Sigma 150-600mm Sport is that is too heavy and difficult to hand hold when the lens is fully extended. If they can keep the weight down to that of the C, then the 60-600mm will be more user friendly.


----------



## fox40phil (Sep 18, 2018)

Something like the Nikon 200-500 5.6 would be nice!


----------



## masterpix (Sep 18, 2018)

All in all, at 600mm the lens will need to be on a tripod or monopod to make the image stable enough, especially with those huge megapixel sensors, SO I won't worry about the weight much, if it will be sharp lens it can be a all-you-need to a nature expedition.


----------



## Tom W (Sep 18, 2018)

Some interesting lenses, though I can't imagine that the optical performance of that 60-600 will be stellar. Good, probably, but not stellar.


----------



## docsmith (Sep 18, 2018)

AlanF said:


> You have to go to a Panny or a Sony for an f/4 24-600mm equivalent....
> The problem with the Sigma 150-600mm Sport is that is too heavy and difficult to hand hold when the lens is fully extended. If they can keep the weight down to that of the C, then the 60-600mm will be more user friendly.


I own the 150-600S. It is a great lens. I do handhold it. I have shared/loaned it several times. Those photographers also hand held it. 

So I would reword Alan’s comment. It is a heavy lens. Be prepared, it is no 70-200 f/4 is. But if you are there to shoot, many normal people have handheld this lens. 

I hope the 60-600 has good IQ. The IQ on the 150-600S is very good. But I thought the previous 50-500 lenses (pre global series) were a bit less than I would want. But post Global series Sigma has been on a roll. 

So, looking forward to these lenses.


----------



## padam (Sep 18, 2018)

I am sure the 40mm f/1.4 is going to outperform the 35mm f/1.4, since it looks a lot bigger and heavier (more expensive), the 28mm f/1.4 is more like the size I expect with a focal length and aperture like that.


----------



## Sharlin (Sep 18, 2018)

jd7 said:


> For some reason I am a little disappointed the 56 f/1.4 is not EF mount.



I hope it's going to come for EF-M.


----------



## Foxdude (Sep 18, 2018)

Sigma keeps pushing these great performing art lenses. Good for competition, but sadly there is one thing that keeps me away from Sigma lenses- the AF accuracy seems to be a real lottery.
4 times I have played Sigma AF lottery with 4 different lenses. Twice I won, twice I lost. No more Sigmas to me.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 18, 2018)

docsmith said:


> I own the 150-600S. It is a great lens. I do handhold it. I have shared/loaned it several times. Those photographers also hand held it.
> 
> So I would reword Alan’s comment. It is a heavy lens. Be prepared, it is no 70-200 f/4 is. But if you are there to shoot, many normal people have handheld this lens.
> 
> ...



I like to consider myself normal, and I could hand hold the 150-600mm S but the C is so much more comfortable. With all of these things, some can manage to hand hold a particular lens, others find it too much of a strain. Some can hand hold a 600mm II. Others find a 100-400mm II as much as they can take. In general, it is better to keep lenses light.


----------



## Chaitanya (Sep 18, 2018)

fox40phil said:


> Something like the Nikon 200-500 5.6 would be nice!


+1 to that.


----------



## dhachey77 (Sep 18, 2018)

fox40phil said:


> Something like the Nikon 200-500 5.6 would be nice!



Or even better, a 200-600mm F5.6... I don't see the point to a wide range zoom like the 60-600mm lens, when most people buy them for the long end tele needs. Too many optical and operational compromises to be useful (at least to me). I rarely use my 150-600mm C lens below 300mm. I would rather see Sigma optimize the optical quality at the long end. I see they are also about to release a 70-200mm F2.8 lens. Unless the optical performance is as good as the Canon equivalent (very likely), AND the price is significantly lower than Canon's (unlikely), I doubt it will be a big hit. I love my Sigma "Art" lenses, they're as good as anything out there. http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1489421/0&year=2017#14033980


----------



## fullstop (Sep 18, 2018)

andrei1989 said:


> maybe you mean EF-M mount? that disapoints me as well...that sigma keep ignoring EF-M cameras with their DN line of lenses...



rather strange yes, that Sigma and Tokina and Tamron (except 1 anemic 18-200) make lenses for all sorts of "minority niche mounts" but not for APS-C market leading Canon EF-M. Probably they have just not been able to hack the lens-mount communications protocol yet ... 

Anyways, would not be interested in a 56mm/1.4. Looking for a compact tele prime for EF-M ... something like a 85/2.4 IS STM.


----------



## fullstop (Sep 18, 2018)

It will be interesting to see whether third-party EF-mount lenses will have additional limitations (additional to the ones applying to Canon EF lenses) when adapted to EOS R bodies. Would not be surprised if Canon pulled a few tricks on the EF/RF communications interface/protocol once more. ;-)


----------



## AlanF (Sep 18, 2018)

dhachey77 said:


> Or even better, a 200-600mm F5.6... I don't see the point to a wide range zoom like the 60-600mm lens, when most people buy them for the long end tele needs. Too many optical and operational compromises to be useful (at least to me). I rarely use my 150-600mm C lens below 300mm. I would rather see Sigma optimize the optical quality at the long end. I see they are also about to release a 70-200mm F2.8 lens. Unless the optical performance is as good as the Canon equivalent (very likely), AND the price is significantly lower than Canon's (unlikely), I doubt it will be a big hit. I love my Sigma "Art" lenses, they're as good as anything out there. http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1489421/0&year=2017#14033980



I also tend to use at the longer ranges. But, on safari, a short focal length is very useful for when animals come close. I have just complained about the weight of the 150-600mm S f/6.3. A 200-600mm S f/5.6 will be heavier still.


----------



## andrei1989 (Sep 18, 2018)

dhachey77 said:


> I don't see the point to a wide range zoom like the 60-600mm lens, when most people buy them for the long end tele needs


it's a follow up to the 50-500 and i've seen people say it's their do it all travel lens


----------



## 6degrees (Sep 18, 2018)

Canon RF third party lenses providers?


----------



## AJ (Sep 18, 2018)

This looks like a new incarnation of the old Bigma (50-500), this time with OS and slightly longer focal lengths.


----------



## Ecto-1 (Sep 18, 2018)

60-600mm seems a tad excessive to me considering what Sigma already offer. Still, you can never have too many lenses being released. I'll stick to my Canon 100mm and 500mm primes for my walkabout kit though.


----------



## hkenneth (Sep 18, 2018)

Have to say that 60-600 is a beautiful looking lens. I am curious about its performance.


----------



## andrei1989 (Sep 18, 2018)

hkenneth said:


> Have to say that 60-600 is a beautiful looking lens. I am curious about its performance.


be sure Kai W will test it...superzoooom


----------



## slclick (Sep 18, 2018)

The forty might be the sleeper in this bunch, I'm very interested.


----------



## DanCarr (Sep 18, 2018)

masterpix said:


> All in all, at 600mm the lens will need to be on a tripod or monopod to make the image stable enough, especially with those huge megapixel sensors, SO I won't worry about the weight much, if it will be sharp lens it can be a all-you-need to a nature expedition.


Sorry, but this makes no sense. If you have the light for a fast enough shutter speed then simply having a 600mm focal length doesn't mean you have to use support. I just shot wildlife with 800mm from a moving zodiac and if you have the light, it's totally doable. There's no dark art to this, it's simply a case of getting a fast enough shutter speed. If you're on stable ground and using a 4-stop IS system then sharp shots are possible with a 600mm at just a few hundredths of a second. Sure, support is nice to have, but let's not perpetuate some myth that it's absolutely necessary...


----------



## aceflibble (Sep 18, 2018)

Well, we knew a few of these were inevitable when the Cine versions were announced, but hey. There is one more I got a heads-up on a few months ago, nice to see it being received well.

Thank all the powers that be that there will finally be a pro-grade 28mm option for a Canon mount. This has been my most-requested lens from Canon for the last decade. It pisses me off no end that they patented a 28mm f/1.4L design to match the 24 and 35, but never bothered to make it; meanwhile they still pump out the early-90s 28mm f/1.8 which falls to pieces on any modern body. With this and the fast 105mm, Sigma are nicely filling in all the blanks I want from Canon. I could sincerely use nothing but Sigma lenses now, both for all my work and for all my personal shooting. (I won't, 'cause the focusing is still dodgy with some models and I've got perfectly good Canon lenses which don't need to be replaced, but Sigma do now cover _every_ focal length I use.) Shame the filter thread is so large though, so it's a safe bet the lens will be on the unnecessarily heavy side.

The 40mm should be nice, never been terribly happy with the Sigma 35mm or 50mm so sure, I'll take that. May as well. Again, shame about the size, though.

60-600 is a nice surprise. I don't anticipate it having the best optics or AF, but I can see it being very useful for keen starter sports photographers who don't have the money for 'big whites' and for whom total IQ isn't as big a deal as either full-time professional sports shooters or wildlife pros, who'd go for the 150-600 instead. (Which presumably will still have better IQ and AF.)

The 70-200, eh. Sigma's 70-200s have never been terribly impressive so it's hard to be interested in this one. If it has the newer Sigma's AF performance and the price is low, though, it sure has a good market.

The 56mm is a lens I got to see a while back but couldn't discuss publicly. Clued-in due to my well-known love for the 7D series. Anyhoo, in the short time I got to peek at it, it seemed like a monster. Better-built than Sigma's other 'contemporary' lenses that I've handled; couldn't do any detailed image testing, of course, and it was a genuine pre-production (not what manufacturers' PR call "pre-production" a month before a camera is on store shelves; _actual_ pre-production, as far as they hadn't even decided if it would be in the 'contemporary' or 'art' series at the time) so the AF didn't seem all that hot, but hey. I_ hated_ the Fujifilm 56mm f/1.2 (three copies of it), but the Sigma feels much better in the hand, the focus ring especially is a lot nicer, and though I can't speak to the image quality in terms of any kind of detail, on the back of the camera it seemed really nice; no distortion or vignetting.
I never got a word about the price or when to expect it to market. It's nice to see it is evidently very close to release; I wasn't expecting it until late next year. (Hence uncharacteristically being willing to keep quiet about it.) If the price is kept reasonable—and since it's a 'contemporary', it should be—it's going to be a _monster_ for APS-C systems and the new standard, most-common portrait prime.

The 28mm is the lens which means the most to me, but FWIW I do believe the 56mm, thought he most unassuming lens of the bunch, is going to be the one making the biggest splash and the most difference.


----------



## Redline (Sep 18, 2018)

Otara said:


> 60-600mm - getting there, but need 24-600mm to be true all rounder, prefer f4 constant as well. Nothing too silly.



Nah let's go for something simpler, walkaround 12mm-600mm f/2.8-f/5.6 so everyone including astrophotographers and sports shooters will all be happy. Except macro shooters. We don't care about them sorry.


----------



## BeenThere (Sep 18, 2018)

Redline said:


> Nah let's go for something simpler, walkaround 12mm-600mm f/2.8-f/5.6 so everyone including astrophotographers and sports shooters will all be happy. Except macro shooters. We don't care about them sorry.


T-S?


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Sep 18, 2018)

aceflibble said:


> The 70-200, eh. Sigma's 70-200s have never been terribly impressive so it's hard to be interested in this one.



When I shoot motor sport, I shoot shoulder-to-shoulder with a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 Mk II user: my Siggy 70-200mm matches it in every regard, on identical bodies for both of us.

It's a _superb_ lens, and I don't doubt the new one will be better again...


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 18, 2018)

andrei1989 said:


> maybe you mean EF-M mount? that disapoints me as well...that sigma keep ignoring EF-M cameras with their DN line of lenses...



Maybe Canon aren't licencing the EF-M mount and protocols to anyone else yet. However, if EF->EF-M Third party adaptors are available it's more than likely that the protocols are either identical or very similar to the standard EF protocols.

Which makes me suspect that Sigma's licence agreement with Canon for use of the EF mount specifically prohibits them using the protocols for developing anything except EF mount lenses. Probably could be renegotiated, but I'm sure Canon are happy to keep control of EF-M for now.

Also, I think the chance of native autofocus capable RF lenses from third parties is remote.


----------



## Chaitanya (Sep 18, 2018)

On side note not sure how many didnt notice when Sigma announced their recent Cine lenses 28mm t1.5 and 40mm t1.5 that those two lenses were missing from current Art primes. So far the Sigma Art primes(and handful of zooms) have their equivalent Cine lenses lenses announced after slr lenses and these two are the probably 1st time that Sigma announced a Cine lens before art prime.


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 18, 2018)

BeenThere said:


> T-S?





Otara said:


> 60-600mm - getting there, but need 24-600mm to be true all rounder, prefer f4 constant as well. Nothing too silly.



As long as it's a lightweight pancake lens and can also do at least 1:1 macro, and of course has latest generation IS, I think I'd buy one if it was under $400.


----------



## hkenneth (Sep 18, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> Maybe Canon aren't licencing the EF-M mount and protocols to anyone else yet. However, if EF->EF-M Third party adaptors are available it's more than likely that the protocols are either identical or very similar to the standard EF protocols.
> 
> Which makes me suspect that Sigma's licence agreement with Canon for use of the EF mount specifically prohibits them using the protocols for developing anything except EF mount lenses. Probably could be renegotiated, but I'm sure Canon are happy to keep control of EF-M for now.
> 
> Also, I think the chance of native autofocus capable RF lenses from third parties is remote.



As far as I know, Canon have never licensed their EF mount to any third party manufacturers. Sigma reverse engineered the EF mount.


----------



## razorzec (Sep 18, 2018)

So that is the new Bigma

It would be nice if they could reverse engineer the RF mount and make versions of these compatible straight to the EOS R system.


----------



## andrei1989 (Sep 18, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> However, if EF->EF-M Third party adaptors are available it's more than likely that the protocols are either identical or very similar to the standard EF protocols.


exactly! what's keeping sigma and tamron from making the same lenses they make for sony E available for canon M?
i have a hard time believing it's about the mechanics of the EF-M mount since samyang along with numerous chinese manufacturers have been making countless manual EF-M lenses


----------



## Talys (Sep 18, 2018)

AlanF said:


> I like to consider myself normal, and I could hand hold the 150-600mm S but the C is so much more comfortable. With all of these things, some can manage to hand hold a particular lens, others find it too much of a strain. Some can hand hold a 600mm II. Others find a 100-400mm II as much as they can take. In general, it is better to keep lenses light.



In my mind, physically being able to hold a lens and take a sharp photo doesn't make a lens a handheld lens. I mean, by that definition, even very large and heavy lenses could be "handheld", because, yes, if you really wanted to, you could do what it takes to hold it and take a shot without it getting a blurry image.

Handheld lenses, to me, need to have a mounted weight, balance, and size that is comfortable for someone who engages in a lot of photography with heavier lenses to shoot as a handheld shooter for many hours (at least, the length of an event) without fatigue. I cannot imagine using the 150-600S for the duration of even a two hour event (never mind a half-day sports event) handheld and not having fatigue hit pretty early - I'd be lowering the camera to give my arm a rest frequently, probably missing moments, and that to me makes it non-handheld.


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 18, 2018)

razorzec said:


> It would be nice if they could reverse engineer the RF mount



A lot has happened in the time since the EF mount was launched, especially in cryptography. Unless Canon are extremely dumb they will require all RF lenses and RF->EF adaptors to be digitally signed making it pretty much impossible for anyone without NSA-level resources to reverse engineer the protocol. 

Plus, there will be patents galore to deal with.

No third-party RF lenses unless Canon allow them.


----------



## Talys (Sep 18, 2018)

razorzec said:


> So that is the new Bigma
> 
> It would be nice if they could reverse engineer the RF mount and make versions of these compatible straight to the EOS R system.



I'm sure that will happen soon enough. Then it will be the Rigma!


----------



## rbr (Sep 18, 2018)

I could see Canon itself introducing such a lens for the new R mout now that they re no longer constrained by the f5.6 limit they seem to have for their EF lenses.


----------



## Talys (Sep 18, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> A lot has happened in the time since the EF mount was launched, especially in cryptography. Unless Canon are extremely dumb they will require all RF lenses and RF->EF adaptors to be digitally signed making it pretty much impossible for anyone without NSA-level resources to reverse engineer the protocol.
> 
> Plus, there will be patents galore to deal with.
> 
> No third-party RF lenses unless Canon allow them.



I'm not sure why Canon wouldn't want third party lenses. They're a net positive for the ecosystem.

On the subject of device encryption, obviously it's possible, as the latest Canon (or Sony) chipped batteries are very hard for third parties to knock off -- it's often a long time before there are compatible batteries, and the first few generations often don't communicate fully, for example, not showing battery life remaining.


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 18, 2018)

hkenneth said:


> As far as I know, Canon have never licensed their EF mount to any third party manufacturers. Sigma reverse engineered the EF mount.





Talys said:


> I'm not sure why Canon wouldn't want third party lenses. They're a net positive for the ecosystem.
> 
> On the subject of device encryption, obviously it's possible, as the latest Canon (or Sony) chipped batteries are very hard for third parties to knock off -- it's often a long time before there are compatible batteries, and the first few generations often don't communicate fully, for example, not showing battery life remaining.



Well, a battery has a much simpler electronic system than a lens and probably doesn't justify more than a rudimentary security (which still takes a long time to crack). But a lens can be built with all sorts of technical and legal protection that would be pretty much impossible to get around.

So, even without encryption consider this.

When powered up the lens CPU receives a message from the camera saying "who are you?".

It then responds, in plain ASCII code, electronically, "The manufacturer of this lens acknowledges that this lens contains proprietary code and technology belonging to Canon Inc, and this message confirms that in the case of no binding licence agreement being in place a $5,000 USD licence fee per lens manufactured will be paid by the manufacturer to Canon, Inc."

IF that EXACT message is not received by the camera, the camera will refuse to accept the lens.

So, it would be trivial in court for Canon to get a trusted third party to hook up an analyser to a third party lens and make it display that message. 

Game over for Sigma, or whoever. No way their lawyers would ever risk putting out a lens that transmits that message on startup!


----------



## andrei1989 (Sep 18, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> No third-party RF lenses unless Canon allow them.


canon should welcome 3rd party manufacturers to use their mount...at least in my mind...they have their reasons for sure...
but we would probably have had twice the amount of autofocus EF-M lenses by now if they would have been more open..


----------



## RickWagoner (Sep 18, 2018)

60-600mm...

For the times you want to shoot people portraits and wild Bald Eagles with one lens..


----------



## The3o5FlyGuy (Sep 18, 2018)

honestly, I'd gladly take a 100-600 f/5.6 lens. or even a 200-600 f/5.6 lens!


----------



## RayValdez360 (Sep 18, 2018)

What a bunch of weird primes to make. in 5 years we will have 26mm, 38mm, 44mm, and 62mm


----------



## andrei1989 (Sep 18, 2018)

wasn't there also a 70-200 f4 rumored?


----------



## Talys (Sep 18, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> Well, a battery has a much simpler electronic system than a lens and probably doesn't justify more than a rudimentary security (which still takes a long time to crack). But a lens can be built with all sorts of technical and legal protection that would be pretty much impossible to get around.



Either way, it's just either a dedicated chip, or programming for a multipurpose chip. Whether it's a battery or a lens, it doesn't really matter - there's ample space in either because these things are tiny.

Batteries are "important" to secure, because they're very lucrative, and a lot of people buy at least one extra battery. If someone buys another $100 battery, that's probably another easy $90 profit  Or, you can use it to entice people to buy a value pack or bundle, or whatever.


----------



## beegee (Sep 18, 2018)

docsmith said:


> I own the 150-600S. It is a great lens. I do handhold it. I have shared/loaned it several times. Those photographers also hand held it.
> 
> So I would reword Alan’s comment. It is a heavy lens. Be prepared, it is no 70-200 f/4 is. But if you are there to shoot, many normal people have handheld this lens.
> 
> ...


 Spot on DocSmith. I had the 50-500 as my first long range lens. When I sacrificed the range and moved to the 100-400 LII the difference was night and day. 

Is the 500 f/4 sigma worth it still looking for some good comparisons between the canon 500 f/4 II and the sigma. Any help with guiding me to some reference on this will be much appreciated and save me some $$$$


----------



## Marximusprime (Sep 18, 2018)

beegee said:


> Spot on DocSmith. I had the 50-500 as my first long range lens. When I sacrificed the range and moved to the 100-400 LII the difference was night and day.
> 
> Is the 500 f/4 sigma worth it still looking for some good comparisons between the canon 500 f/4 II and the sigma. Any help with guiding me to some reference on this will be much appreciated and save me some $$$$



Unfortunately, I haven't owned the Canon version, but I can tell you that the Sigma is a heck of a lens. Very sharp and it takes TCs well (I have the 1.4x). I actually tried the Canon 400 DO II (with 1.4x and 2x TCs), and I kept the Sigma and returned the Canon. I gained half a pound, but saved $3000 (over Canon's 500). Here's the link to my Flickr page for the Sigma. I can't speak for that dove looking bird or the hummingbird, but the rest of the pictures were taken by me, mostly with the 7D Mark II and the extender added, and all SOOC JPEGs:
https://www.flickr.com/groups/[email protected]/pool/


----------



## krisbell (Sep 18, 2018)

AlanF said:


> You have to go to a Panny or a Sony for an f/4 24-600mm equivalent....
> The problem with the Sigma 150-600mm Sport is that is too heavy and difficult to hand hold when the lens is fully extended. If they can keep the weight down to that of the C, then the 60-600mm will be more user friendly.



AlanF I'm sure you have looked into this but I read an interesting piece the other day that said the C was at the very least, as sharp as the Sport and basically said that even if they were the same price, they would still go with the C.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 18, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> A lot has happened in the time since the EF mount was launched, especially in cryptography. Unless Canon are extremely dumb they will require all RF lenses and RF->EF adaptors to be digitally signed making it pretty much impossible for anyone without NSA-level resources to reverse engineer the protocol.
> 
> Plus, there will be patents galore to deal with.
> 
> No third-party RF lenses unless Canon allow them.


and once again...… what would happen if Canon did not allow third party lenses?

The store clerks tell the customer "Don't buy Canon, you can't use third party lenses with them".... and sales plummet......


----------



## AlanF (Sep 18, 2018)

krisbell said:


> AlanF I'm sure you have looked into this but I read an interesting piece the other day that said the C was at the very least, as sharp as the Sport and basically said that even if they were the same price, they would still go with the C.


I have read similar comments. But, there are some reports that the S is sharper. I think it boils down to copy variation, so a good copy of the C beats a bad S and vice versa. There are lots of happy 150-600mm C users in CR. I have a very good copy of the C, it's as sharp at 400mm as my 100-400mm II, perhaps a tad sharper and good at 600mm. But, the 100-400mm II is easier to handle and has fantastic AF. I do like the 150-600mm.


----------



## stochasticmotions (Sep 18, 2018)

Great, a new Bigma replacement. the 50-500 was an ok lens for its time and for a 10X zoom, it will be interesting to see how good this one can be. Maybe next we will see a new Sigmonster....I've always wanted to play with the 300-800 and a new one would be very interesting.


----------



## Mac Duderson (Sep 18, 2018)

BOOM!!!!! WOOO HOOO!!!!!! 
Sigma must have been reading my comments haha! 
Ya right....
But I have been spamming this forum forever wanting a 28mm 1.4 because my 35mm 1.4ii is a little tighter then I want.
THANK YOU SIGMA! How do I order!!??


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Sep 18, 2018)

I am still surprised how Sigma can develop so many optically excellent lenses in such a short time.


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 18, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> and once again...… what would happen if Canon did not allow third party lenses?
> 
> The store clerks tell the customer "Don't buy Canon, you can't use third party lenses with them".... and sales plummet......



You may get the odd sales clerk who does that, but I can't imagine most sales clerks would even mention it. The lack of third party EF-M lenses has hardly hurt that system.

Anyway, I've never had a Sigma lens I've been happy with. I wouldn't trust them to produce something that reliably focused on the RF mount.


----------



## Ladislav (Sep 18, 2018)

IMO Sigma messed up with releasing two 150-600 before. Especially considering that they had the same main specs and most reviewers who compared both recommended the cheaper "C" version unless you really need the build of "S" version. In almost everything else "C" version was either better or about the same - including IQ and AF. If I remember correctly "C" version was even faster lens through zoom range because it went to slower aperture later in the zoom range. 

I went for "C" because it was good value for money. It is not a superb lens but for now it is the best lens I can get and this new 60-600 does not change anything about it. If they did a very good 200-500/5.6 "S", I would be much more interested.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Sep 18, 2018)

Wow!
This 40mm F1.4 has an 82mm filter diameter...
Even larger than 50 Art.


----------



## Etienne (Sep 19, 2018)

Some Sigma lenses are nice (I have the 18-35 f/1.8), but the AF noise ruins it for video. They cannot make a quiet AF system it seems. Pity


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 19, 2018)

andrei1989 said:


> exactly! what's keeping sigma and tamron from making the same lenses they make for sony E available for canon M?
> i have a hard time believing it's about the mechanics of the EF-M mount since samyang along with numerous chinese manufacturers have been making countless manual EF-M lenses



The canon EF-EFM adapter is not at all like any of the Sony adapters. You really lose quite a lot in terms of AF speed and accuracy with the Sony adaptation. As a result, making a lens with the native Sony mount presents a decent market. The Canon adapter shows pretty much no degradation of performance whatsoever, so there really isn't a screaming need to have a different mount from the one they already make. If I were Sigma, I would not have made ef-m lenses for this reason. 

Yes, I know, adapters are inconvenient, and they, plus the EF lenses make for larger kit, etc. Still, I'd much rather see Sigma update its 35 Art to the modern standards - or, better still, launch another unprecedented new lens - than release any of the bunch in EF-M.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 19, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> A lot has happened in the time since the EF mount was launched, especially in cryptography. Unless Canon are extremely dumb they will require all RF lenses and RF->EF adaptors to be digitally signed making it pretty much impossible for anyone without NSA-level resources to reverse engineer the protocol.
> 
> Plus, there will be patents galore to deal with.
> 
> No third-party RF lenses unless Canon allow them.



They certainly have the capacity to do this. Whether it would be advisable is another question. 

I know for my part that if Canon eliminates compatibility with third party lenses, then I'll be deciding between the other manufacturers. I have relied on Tamron and, particularly, Sigma to fill in holes Canon hasn't had the capacity to fill. I don't think I'd be happy limiting myself to a single manufacturer. So many of my images I'd have missed had I tried to box myself into a single camera manufacturer's system. 

Indeed, the fact that RF is here and that there is tumult means that it's the time to do one's due diligence. If RF is compatible with the legacy third party EF glass and the RF mount is available for future third party development, it looks like the horse to ride - at least from this distance. We'll see when the cameras are delivered. If you take out that capability, though, Sony and the Z mount both move above.

This isn't some "stupid Canon" complaint post. I'm just pointing out that Canon is unlikely to make this move because it would suffer a loss of body share in trying to protect its lens share. And body share is where the future is, especially at the moment you opt to switch mounts on your millions of customers.


----------



## Avenger 2.0 (Sep 19, 2018)

fullstop said:


> rather strange yes, that Sigma and Tokina and Tamron (except 1 anemic 18-200) make lenses for all sorts of "minority niche mounts" but not for APS-C market leading Canon EF-M. Probably they have just not been able to hack the lens-mount communications protocol yet ...



Because the M mount isn't open, Sigma and Tamron need to reverse engineer compatibility.
The Tamron 18-200mm for example gives problems with the newer M series camera's. 
Canon builds in compatibility patches in their new camera firmware for older (EF-M) lenses.
So Sigma and Canon would need to reverse engineer and test their lenses with newer M body's.



fullstop said:


> It will be interesting to see whether third-party EF-mount lenses will have additional limitations (additional to the ones applying to Canon EF lenses) when adapted to EOS R bodies. Would not be surprised if Canon pulled a few tricks on the EF/RF communications interface/protocol once more. ;-)



If the EF-RF adapter (that can be firmware updated by canon) has identification and/or patches for every canon lens inside (sound like that is the case), it is possible third-party EF-mount lenses won't function at all (or in very limited and restricted compatibility mode) with the new RF body's.



jolyonralph said:


> No third-party RF lenses unless Canon allow them.



Is certainly possible. But that would make Sigma and Tamron focus their attention on Sony E-mount lenses.
Can make a lot of people switch to Sony mirrorless instead of Canon R. Not everyone has the money to buy Canon lenses.


----------



## andrei1989 (Sep 19, 2018)

Avenger 2.0 said:


> Because the M mount isn't open, Sigma and Tamron need to reverse engineer compatibility.
> The Tamron 18-200mm for example gives problems with the newer M series camera's.
> 
> If the EF-RF adapter (that can be firmware updated by canon) has identification and/or patches for every canon lens inside (sound like that is the case), it is possible third-party EF-mount lenses won't function at all (or in very limited and restricted compatibility mode) with the new RF body's.



as they have reverse engineered all the EF lenses until now...

the EOS R was tested with a sigma EF lens with the adapter, there's a video on youtube..i believe it was the 35 (?)
everything worked fine


----------



## masterpix (Sep 19, 2018)

DanCarr said:


> Sorry, but this makes no sense. If you have the light for a fast enough shutter speed then simply having a 600mm focal length doesn't mean you have to use support. I just shot wildlife with 800mm from a moving zodiac and if you have the light, it's totally doable. There's no dark art to this, it's simply a case of getting a fast enough shutter speed. If you're on stable ground and using a 4-stop IS system then sharp shots are possible with a 600mm at just a few hundredths of a second. Sure, support is nice to have, but let's not perpetuate some myth that it's absolutely necessary...


As you said "if you have the light"... which is not the case every time. While such a lens wold be heavy, as some mentioned before that the 150-600 sport is already very heavy to hold for a long time.


----------



## Foxdude (Sep 19, 2018)

blackcoffee17 said:


> I am still surprised how Sigma can develop so many optically excellent lenses in such a short time.



Because they don't have to develop constant and precise AF


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Sep 19, 2018)

Foxdude said:


> Because they don't have to develop constant and precise AF



Haha, and all that - but I can only assume you've never actually _used_ one...


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Sep 19, 2018)

masterpix said:


> As you said "if you have the light"... which is not the case every time. While such a lens wold be heavy, as some mentioned before that the 150-600 sport is already very heavy to hold for a long time.


It still doesn't fly.

I routinely use my Canon 500mm f/4 Mk II at 700mm (hardly ever "native" at 500mm, far more often out to 1000mm) in 5 digit ISO light, handheld - I never, ever use a tripod or monopod, and it's _fine._

I'm neither big; nor muscled like a body-builder; nor in my first flush of youth - and I manage perfectly well for hours at a time.

The trick?

_I just do it. _It's only "too hard" to do if you start from the position of believing that it will be...


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 19, 2018)

Avenger 2.0 said:


> But that would make Sigma and Tamron focus their attention on Sony E-mount lenses.
> Can make a lot of people switch to Sony mirrorless instead of Canon R. Not everyone has the money to buy Canon lenses.



This is something only Canon's accountants and managers know the answer to. How many body sales will they lose by not allowing third party lenses vs how many lens sales will they lose by allowing it?

We can all guess one way or the other which way is better for Canon, but we can never know for sure.


----------



## derekbez (Sep 19, 2018)

Bit disappointed with the 60-600. Appreciate that it is the reincarnate of the Bigma, which in itself is its own cult niche. However, I would much rather see a new version of the 150-600C that is designed for crop sensors. 

I use the 150-600C on a 7D, and just about every other one of these lenses I've seen in the wild has been on a crop sensor camera. Given the smaller sensor, it would seems to make sense to have either:
- a smaller/lighter version with slightly less glass, or
- same physical size, but with a slightly larger aperture.

The 150-600S could stay full-frame. It seems a bit silly to have two virtually identical lenses.


----------



## snoke (Sep 19, 2018)

razorzec said:


> So that is the new Bigma
> 
> It would be nice if they could reverse engineer the RF mount and make versions of these compatible straight to the EOS R system.



Why anyone do this?

Just get license from Canon like Sigma & Tamron.


----------



## Foxdude (Sep 19, 2018)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Haha, all that - but I can only assume you've never actually _used_ one...


Actually I have, four of them. Two was utterly hopeless, two of them was good. I loved 35mm Art, always dead-on focus on my 6D. Tried 50mm Art, and it has very inconsistent, so afma wasn't helping. 70mm macro was... well it was bad. Now I have 100-400mm C, that seems to be good so far. Still, No matter how good these lenses will perform, I'm not buying Sigmas anymore.I think I'm not the only one.


----------



## Arod820 (Sep 19, 2018)

Dear Sigma

RF mount sigma Art zooms please, f1.8.

Thank you


----------



## Arod820 (Sep 19, 2018)

Foxdude said:


> Actually I have, four of them. Two was utterly hopeless, two of them was good. I loved 35mm Art, always dead-on focus on my 6D. Tried 50mm Art, and it has very inconsistent, so afma wasn't helping. 70mm macro was... well it was bad. Now I have 100-400mm C, that seems to be good so far. Still, No matter how good these lenses will perform, I'm not buying Sigmas anymore.I think I'm not the only one.


Did you give up before the lens dock came out, my Art lens zooms are spot on even at 1.8. I had a 17-50 2.8 that was iffy but since the new art lenses came out I haven’t had a bad experience.


----------



## Foxdude (Sep 19, 2018)

Arod820 said:


> Did you give up before the lens dock came out, my Art lens zooms are spot on even at 1.8. I had a 17-50 2.8 that was iffy but since the new art lenses came out I haven’t had a bad experience.



Yes. 50mm Art AF was really inconsistent. Correct me if I'm wrong, but usb-dock cant correct this? Plus, I don't want all that extra hassle, I prefer to pay a bit more for first party AF that I can rely.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Sep 19, 2018)

Foxdude said:


> Actually I have, four of them.



My point still stands - Sigma is more than capable of providing _extremely _accurate and precise AF in its lenses.

I spent several years with a 70-200mm f/2.8 and a 120-300mm f/2.8 as my lens "quiver" - always used hand-held, generally with a 1.4x or 2x TC in the mix - and both were excellent, happily dealing with any task I presented them with, whether wide-open; or shooting birds in flight; or fast aircraft (this one is on the pilot's wall over his fireplace); or panning to follow racing motorbikes or British Touring Cars - they did it all, and did it all really well.


----------



## razorzec (Sep 19, 2018)

snoke said:


> Why anyone do this?
> 
> Just get license from Canon like Sigma & Tamron.



Not sure that's possible, Canon licenses their EF mounts to body makers like BlackMagic and Panasonic, but I don't think they ever licensed the EF mount to lens manufacturers. Did Zeiss licensed their ZE/Milvus (one that had electronic contacts) from Canon? or they just simply reverse engineered the thing?


----------



## andrei1989 (Sep 19, 2018)

razorzec said:


> Not sure that's possible, Canon licenses their EF mounts to body makers like BlackMagic and Panasonic, but I don't think they ever licensed the EF mount to lens manufacturers. Did Zeiss licensed their ZE/Milvus (one that had electronic contacts) from Canon? or they just simply reverse engineered the thing?



everybody reverse engineered the EF mount. if canon would licence to anyone you'd have the following:
1) lens would be reported correctly in LR (doesn't happen always, only with some lenses)
2) peripheral illumination correction or whatever it's called would work
3) no issues with newly launched bodies


----------



## Stuart (Sep 19, 2018)

When will Sigma announce RF mounts?


----------



## Arod820 (Sep 19, 2018)

Foxdude said:


> Yes. 50mm Art AF was really inconsistent. Correct me if I'm wrong, but usb-dock cant correct this? Plus, I don't want all that extra hassle, I prefer to pay a bit more for first party AF that I can rely.[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> Foxdude said:
> ...


----------



## FramerMCB (Sep 19, 2018)

AlanF said:


> You have to go to a Panny or a Sony for an f/4 24-600mm equivalent....
> The problem with the Sigma 150-600mm Sport is that is too heavy and difficult to hand hold when the lens is fully extended. If they can keep the weight down to that of the C, then the 60-600mm will be more user friendly.


This is an updated, improved (most likely), and extended version of the "BIGMA", the older Sigma 50-550 lens...which is hand-holdable in limited 'quantities'. But we shall see. I didn't make note is it going to be a "S" (Sport) or a "C" (Contemporary)?


----------



## AlanF (Sep 19, 2018)

FramerMCB said:


> This is an updated, improved (most likely), and extended version of the "BIGMA", the older Sigma 50-550 lens...which is hand-holdable in limited 'quantities'. But we shall see. I didn't make note is it going to be a "S" (Sport) or a "C" (Contemporary)?


It's in big letters on the Home Page - Sport.


----------



## FramerMCB (Sep 19, 2018)

andrei1989 said:


> everybody reverse engineered the EF mount. if canon would licence to anyone you'd have the following:
> 1) lens would be reported correctly in LR (doesn't happen always, only with some lenses)
> 2) peripheral illumination correction or whatever it's called would work
> 3) no issues with newly launched bodies



It should be noted that the most recent Sigma lenses do have that in-camera body lens correction "visibility" for different lens aberrations. The 135mm f1.8 and the 105mm f1.4, and I believe the 14mm f1.4 does as well... so something has changed there. I don't know if they have a back-door relationship with Canon now or just how this was achieved...


----------



## FramerMCB (Sep 19, 2018)

AlanF said:


> It's in big letters on the Home Page - Sport.



Thanks. I figured this the case but was too lazy to go look...


----------



## aceflibble (Sep 19, 2018)

Keith_Reeder said:


> When I shoot motor sport, I shoot shoulder-to-shoulder with a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 Mk II user: my Siggy 70-200mm matches it in every regard, on identical bodies for both of us.
> 
> It's a _superb_ lens, and I don't doubt the new one will be better again...


That's fine for you, but it's no mystery that 70-200 f/2.8 lenses are predominantly used in portraiture, news reporting/journalism, and event coverage, and at those closer distances the Sigma 70-200s have, historically, been the worst of the 'main' bunch; Tamron do a little better, then Nikon, and the Canons have always been the best of the lot. (These days i'd put Sony's up there between Nikon and Canon; Fuji's is also very nice, though it is an f/4 equivalent.)

I'm not saying Sigma can't make a good 70-200 now, just that, so far, their track record hasn't been the best and so it'd be smart to approach any new 70-200 they make with some trepidation.


----------



## razorzec (Sep 19, 2018)

andrei1989 said:


> everybody reverse engineered the EF mount. if canon would licence to anyone you'd have the following:
> 1) lens would be reported correctly in LR (doesn't happen always, only with some lenses)
> 2) peripheral illumination correction or whatever it's called would work
> 3) no issues with newly launched bodies



Just to be clear, are you saying that Canon Lenses won't display correction and Metadata settings when used on EF mount Black Magic and Panasonic (or even RED) video cameras?


----------



## Chaitanya (Sep 20, 2018)

razorzec said:


> Just to be clear, are you saying that Canon Lenses won't display correction and Metadata settings when used on EF mount Black Magic and Panasonic (or even RED) video cameras?


What he is saying is that 3rd party lenses dont play well with Canon bodies(Eos, C).


----------



## Avenger 2.0 (Sep 20, 2018)

Stuart said:


> When will Sigma announce RF mounts?


Not anytime soon. It may not even be possible to reverse engineer the RF mount.


----------



## docsmith (Sep 20, 2018)

beegee said:


> Spot on DocSmith. I had the 50-500 as my first long range lens. When I sacrificed the range and moved to the 100-400 LII the difference was night and day.
> 
> Is the 500 f/4 sigma worth it still looking for some good comparisons between the canon 500 f/4 II and the sigma. Any help with guiding me to some reference on this will be much appreciated and save me some $$$$


Thanks Beegee, Bryan/TDP did a nice write up:

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-500mm-f-4-DG-OS-HSM-Sports-Lens.aspx

Overall, it seems like the Sigma is a very good lenses. If you want to split hairs, the Canon is just a bit better (IQ/focus shift AF). But that could be sample variation. But, also, you could also basically stop reading the review when Bryan calls it a "pro grade lens." In all my years reading Bryan's reviews, it is cues like this that he provides. It isn't a number, or stars (he did try that once)….but if he calls it "pro grade" it is a very good lens. He provides additional not so subtle cues, such as the conclusion calling the lens a "really nice one." 

That said, if you want to split the hairs, when he compares it to the EF 500 f/4 II, he found the Canon to be very slightly better.


----------



## docsmith (Sep 20, 2018)

Avenger 2.0 said:


> Not anytime soon. It may not even be possible to reverse engineer the RF mount.


I really wonder if Canon has made the electronics more advanced that will cause the performance of third party lenses to suffer. They have to be careful about doing so intentionally to thwart 3rd party lens manufacturers, as that could be construed as "anti competitive" by different groups (EU, USA, etc), but I am sure some complexities in a modern system could have occurred naturally.


----------



## andrei1989 (Sep 20, 2018)

docsmith said:


> intentionally to thwart 3rd party lens manufacturers, as that could be construed as "anti competitive" by different groups (EU, USA, etc),



good point which i don't think i've seen mentioned anywhere
being hit with a fine might be worse than losing a bit of lens sales...


----------



## Groundhog (Sep 20, 2018)

docsmith said:


> I really wonder if Canon has made the electronics more advanced that will cause the performance of third party lenses to suffer. They have to be careful about doing so intentionally to thwart 3rd party lens manufacturers, as that could be construed as "anti competitive" by different groups (EU, USA, etc), but I am sure some complexities in a modern system could have occurred naturally.



Canon is in no way obligated to allow 3rd party lenses on their cameras and no other manufacturer would be sueing that Canon made reverse engineering harder.
It would only be an issue if the RF mount would be an open standard (like mFT) and you would impair the performance of lenses from other brands.


----------



## Chaitanya (Sep 20, 2018)

docsmith said:


> I really wonder if Canon has made the electronics more advanced that will cause the performance of third party lenses to suffer. They have to be careful about doing so intentionally to thwart 3rd party lens manufacturers, as that could be construed as "anti competitive" by different groups (EU, USA, etc), but I am sure some complexities in a modern system could have occurred naturally.


Every manufacturer has a right to protect its intellectual property best luck trying to sue either Nikon/Canon for locking out 3rd party makers of propietary lens protocols.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 20, 2018)

Avenger 2.0 said:


> Not anytime soon. It may not even be possible to reverse engineer the RF mount.


VERY doubtful.....


----------



## docsmith (Sep 20, 2018)

Groundhog said:


> Canon is in no way obligated to allow 3rd party lenses on their cameras and no other manufacturer would be sueing that Canon made reverse engineering harder.
> It would only be an issue if the RF mount would be an open standard (like mFT) and you would impair the performance of lenses from other brands.


This could come down to wording. There are instances where companies have gotten into trouble for intentionally taking steps in one product line to favor another product line or for having a very large market share in one product line and using that to potentially stymie competition in another product line. A quick example would be Microsoft a few years ago when the EU sued them saying that Microsoft was using the "Windows Platform" business to favor their "applications" business (word, excel, Explorer, etc) and prevent fair competition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._Commission

So "obligated to allow"...Agreed that Canon does not have to do something like share their protocols. At least, not yet, read to the bottom of the Microsoft situation, the EU is insisting upon for Microsoft to make changes to promote competition but their market share is larger than Canon's. I would think Canon should not do something that intentionally inhibits the ability of a 3rd party lens to be used on their bodies.

A quick example, if Canon added code that turned the camera off if a non-canon lens was mounted....that would be anti-competitive. 

As for companies suing Canon...sure they would, or at least file a complaint. Yelp and others have filed a complaint against Google/Alphabet. I've heard of complaints against Amazon. Microsoft is routinely in these situations. Corporations have legal departments for a reason.



Chaitanya said:


> Every manufacturer has a right to protect its intellectual property best luck trying to sue either Nikon/Canon for locking out 3rd party makers of propietary lens protocols.



I think I mostly agree with this...sure they have a right to protect their intellectual property. Also, they are not obligated to share proprietary information. But, that isn't really what I meant. If there are complexities in Canon's new codes that truly have a purpose that benefits the camera system, that is fine. If it makes it very difficult for 3rd party lens manufacturers, that is fine too (too an extent). But, if Canon takes steps to intentionally thwart the use of a third party lens, or if it is decided Canon has a monopoly or near monopoly in camera bodies and that monopoly unfairly favors the sale of their lenses/thwarts competition...well, that changes things.

As to if Canon has a monopoly, the knee jerk reaction would be of course not, there is Nikon/Sony/etc. But 60% market share is getting pretty high. I know a "monopoly" does not have to be 100% market share...but I do not know where the gray zone really starts.

----------
All this said, I was not trying to say I think Canon is doing this. It is just something that will be interesting to see how it plays out. How hard is it for third party manufacturers to reverse engineer the new protocols? If it becomes next to impossible....I could see a complaint being filed.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 20, 2018)

docsmith said:


> This could come down to wording. There are instances where companies have gotten into trouble for intentionally taking steps in one product line to favor another product line or for having a very large market share in one product line and using that to potentially stymie competition in another product line. A quick example would be Microsoft a few years ago when the EU sued them saying that Microsoft was using the "Windows Platform" business to favor their "applications" business (word, excel, Explorer, etc) and prevent fair competition.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._Commission
> 
> So "obligated to allow"...Agreed that Canon does not have to do something like share their protocols. At least, not yet, read to the bottom of the Microsoft situation, the EU is insisting upon for Microsoft to make changes to promote competition but their market share is larger than Canon's. But they certainly should not do something that intentionally inhibits the ability of a 3rd party lens to be used on their bodies.
> ...



Give me an R mount camera, I hook it up to one of the signal analyzers, and in ten minutes I will have a record of all the signals being exchanged between lens and body.... Then, you decode the signals... it is a very easy task with the right equipment, and it is almost inconceivable that Sigma, Tamron, and the others can not do this


----------



## docsmith (Sep 20, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Give me an R mount camera, I hook it up to one of the signal analyzers, and in ten minutes I will have a record of all the signals being exchanged between lens and body.... Then, you decode the signals... it is a very easy task with the right equipment, and it is almost inconceivable that Sigma, Tamron, and the others can not do this



I saw this go by awhile ago. It amazed me how simple the system really was. 






I would be very surprised if Sigma/Tamron/etc cannot reverse engineer the codes. But, it is something I am watching. Even with the existing EF electronics, my general understanding is that they essentially mimic an existing lens. And there are still problems here and there. We will see if the problems get worse as Canon moved to RF mount.


----------



## snoke (Sep 20, 2018)

andrei1989 said:


> everybody reverse engineered the EF mount. if canon would licence to anyone you'd have the following:
> 1) lens would be reported correctly in LR (doesn't happen always, only with some lenses)
> 2) peripheral illumination correction or whatever it's called would work
> 3) no issues with newly launched bodies



All this nothing about EOS/EF license.

https://photographylife.com/zeiss-make-autofocus-dslr-lenses

_“Due to international licences, it is not possible at the moment for companies outside Japan to offer AF lenses with EF or F mounts” – the same thing that the Zeiss team told me at the Photo Plus expo. _


----------



## noncho (Sep 21, 2018)

Sigma 56 1.4 and the new Canon 32 1.4 are spot on for EOS-M - I was jealous for the similar from Fuji.
Wide angle F2 + between 100-135mm 2.8 small primes would make it a perfect compact system for me.


----------



## mb66energy (Sep 23, 2018)

The Sigma 1.4 56mm sounds interesting for my M50 because I am in the need for a tele lens - from the front element this is a compact tele construction which will deliver stellar IQ because it is a downscaled 85mm lens which is in the sweet spot for lens designers (in this case downscaling is possible due to mirrorless design).

The only drawback: No flexible use is possible and maybe I will still wait for an EF f/1.4 50 IS lens (and after waiting several years I would be satisfied with a f/1.8 solution if it has stellar IQ wide open and is reasonably compact and costs ~400...450 $/EUR! The only chance to be used on EOS M & EOS R and maybe on EOS 5D is to use EF lenses ...

Hope dies last ...

EDIT: Read your post, noncho: not only the lenses are spot on, your post is too: I would just take a stellar EF-M f/4 10mm IS and a EF-M f/2.8 135 IS without too much hesitation. Seeing myself using the 10-22 usually at 10mm and I would accept f/4 if it is mostly free of ghosting, distortion, has very good contrast, good resolution and moderate CA


----------



## andrei1989 (Sep 23, 2018)

mb66energy said:


> The only drawback: No flexible...



the only drawback is that sigma won't make it for the EF-M mount...
c'mon sigma!!!


----------



## mb66energy (Sep 23, 2018)

andrei1989 said:


> the only drawback is that sigma won't make it for the EF-M mount...
> c'mon sigma!!!


That's bad because ... DPAF might simplify things because you do not need to coordinate data from a PDAF sensor to match the image plane. But maybe Sigma has problems to interpret the protocol of EOS M

So the FD f/1.4 50 S.S.C. will be my low light companion for a while.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 24, 2018)

I will be interested in what improvements the 60-600 has over the current sports and contemporary lenses. After reading reviews that consistently indicated there was minimal difference in image quality between the sport and contemporary, I bought the contemporary for price and weight savings. Generally, I prefer the 100-400 with a 1.4 extender, but have certainly found the Sigma worth owning and under certain conditions preferable. 

For me, the weight is a critical factor. I use both the 100-400 Canon and 150-600 Sigma with a monopod because at my age, hand holding gets difficult after awhile. Lugging heavier lenses around is not something I enjoy, especially at sporting events like track, where I have to race from one event to another. Point being, I would rate sharpness and focusing speed as most important, but weight can make a lens a non-starter for me if alternatives are available.


----------

