# Sigma: Hopefully One More Mount in 2022



## [email protected] (Feb 9, 2022)

> Sigma CEO Kazuto Yamaki confirmed that the firm has been working on new mount options for its well-regarded third party lens options, and indicated that he’d like to launch at least one of them in this calendar year. The remarks came in an online question-answer video (Japanese).
> “From the standpoint of a lens manufacturer, I always want to support as many mounts as possible,” answered Yamaki. “I can’t say which mount, but I think I could add at least one [mount] this year.”
> 
> While it might seem obvious that the Canon RF mount would be the best logical choice, Sigma has been promising Fuji X-mount users lenses for more than a year. That smaller market may prove a more intensely-rich vein of demand given that there aren’t many X-mount options aside from Fuji’s own expensive OEM lineup. This may make most sense in an environment where Sigma previously indicated it can’t...



Continue reading...


----------



## gruhl28 (Feb 9, 2022)

Fingers crossed.


----------



## vladk (Feb 9, 2022)

The more lens options the better. For all mounts. I am guilty of never owning Sigma lens - Art are too heavy, others are worse than OEM ones I use(d), IMHO, but competition is always welcome.


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 9, 2022)

vladk said:


> The more lense options the better. For all mounts. I am guilty of never owning Sigma lens - Art are too heavy, others are worse than OEM ones I use(d), IMHO, but competition is always welcome.


Vladk, it's interesting you say that. The new lenses Sigma put out over the past 9 months have really been these cheap-and-cheerful DG DN lenses. Mostly wide vlogger primes. I don't personally have much interest in those, but am salivating over the 35mm f/1.2. I used to own it in Sony E mount back when I was toying with that system. It's the single thing I miss most about Sony.


----------



## Bob Howland (Feb 9, 2022)

Two comments/questions. First, I don't understand some of their DG DN lens focal length choices, especially the 65mm and 24mm macro, and the order in which they are being introduced. Can somebody make sense of it?

Second, are they really going to try to reverse engineer the Fuji X, Nikon Z and Canon R lens mounts or have they convinced the manufacturers to tell them the protocols?


----------



## Blue Zurich (Feb 9, 2022)

Sigma Art RF and Tamron SP RF will come I'm sure, we just need to be patient. 
Hopefully they willl fill some focal length gaps and address filter usage and non bulbous elements in UWA (Laowa 15 Zero D but with AF style)
Pancakes are always welcome as well!


----------



## bbasiaga (Feb 9, 2022)

THe mid-range lens segment on RF could be DOMINATED by Sigma if they released some stuff right now. A 150-600 update that is 80-90% as good as the 100-500, but $1000 less, a 70-200 2.8 that is optically as good as their last one (very close to the EF VII and III) but around $2k, a 50mm 1.4 ART at $1200 (the EF version is at least as good as the Canon 1.2, though obviously slower). A 35 and 85mm 1.4 offering...people would go nuts. 

I hope it happens. I'd love to see a 300 2.8 prime or a redux of the 120-300 2.8 zoom too. Places where Canon isn't interested in playing at the moment. 

Brian


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Feb 9, 2022)

bbasiaga said:


> A 150-600 update that is 80-90% as good as the 100-500, but $1000 less, a 70-200 2.8 that is optically as good as their last one (very close to the EF VII and III) but around $2k, a 50mm 1.4 ART at $1200 (the EF version is at least as good as the Canon 1.2, though obviously slower). A 35 and 85mm 1.4 offering...people would go nuts.


Throw a few of their great UWA options: 
14-24mm F2.8
14mm F1.8
20mm F1.4
24mm F1.4 

If Sigma were able to keep the optical performance AND reduce some weight (the 20mm is awfully heavy) they'd sell out within minutes after the annoucement  

I´m patiently waiting for UWA options from Sigma for RF mount because Canons offering are great but too expensive.


----------



## MartinVLC (Feb 9, 2022)

I would mostly hope for a compact and affordable standard zoom like the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 G2 (so far only for Sony). The Sigma version for Sony (28-70mm f/2.8) even smaller and lighter and cheaper, but not quite as sharp as the Tamron, could be an alternative as well.


----------



## Mistral75 (Feb 9, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> Second, are they really going to try to reverse engineer the Fuji X, Nikon Z and Canon R lens mounts or have they convinced the manufacturers to tell them the protocols?


Fujifilm recently opened the X mount to licensees. 

The three Sigma APS-C f/1.4 DC DN lenses with Fujifilm X mount are expected to be announced shortly.


----------



## dtaylor (Feb 9, 2022)

Mistral75 said:


> Fujifilm recently opened the X mount to licensees.


Canon is foolish for not doing this with RF from the beginning. The market is too large for Sigma and Tamron to ignore, so they will likely reverse engineer RF (which really means reverse engineering the high speed data pins, the other pins are the same). But we could already have Sigma/Tamron RF lenses if Canon had offered licensing.


----------



## melgross (Feb 9, 2022)

dtaylor said:


> Canon is foolish for not doing this with RF from the beginning. The market is too large for Sigma and Tamron to ignore, so they will likely reverse engineer RF (which really means reverse engineering the high speed data pins, the other pins are the same). But we could already have Sigma/Tamron RF lenses if Canon had offered licensing.


Yeah. But you have to understand that Canon is a lens manufacturer with very good sales and profits on those lenses. From their perspective, why should they make it easy for a competitor to take sales away from them?

when Sony opened their mount to third parties, the only lenses they had were old Minolta DSLR and SLR lenses. They needed lenses for their systems as fast as possible to try to have any hope of catching up to Canon and Nikon. Zeiss helped, but not enough, and their own efforts were just taking off. Both Canon and Nikon didn’t need that, so they kept their lens info to themselves.

yes, we may want those third party lenses as fast as possible. But I don’t see any evidence that not having them is holding back RF camera, or lens sales.


----------



## Blue Zurich (Feb 9, 2022)

Canon should free up their proprietary tech and IP because members on Canon Rumors want a wider and less expensive lens selection. Ok. 

Every so often we need a few lessons on '*JBYWIDMCWDI*'

(Just because you want it doesn't mean Canon will do it)


----------



## dlee13 (Feb 9, 2022)

I owned the Sigma 85mm DN Art when I shot Sony and that lens is phenomenal, I’ll instantly sell my current 85mm when it comes out. The 105mm f/2.8 DN Macro is another must for me.

Although Fuji doesn’t have much third party’s options, I feel with the price of Canon RF lenses Sigma would make a killing going with Canon first.


----------



## jd7 (Feb 10, 2022)

Blue Zurich said:


> Canon should free up their proprietary tech and IP because members on Canon Rumors want a wider and less expensive lens selection. Ok.
> 
> Every so often we need a few lessons on '*JBYWIDMCWDI*'
> 
> (Just because you want it doesn't mean Canon will do it)


On the other hand, if they don't free up their proprietary tech at least to the extent of allowing third party lenses (assuming that the lack of third party lenses is actually due to IP issues), do they risk losing out because people choose not to buy into the Canon system at all? Canon will have huge amounts of market data and smart people working out how to maximise their profit, so I'm going to assume Canon knows what it is doing from that point of view. However, for what it's worth, as someone who has shot Canon for about 20 years, I'm very jealous of the lenses availalbe for the Sony system and about two years ago Sony became my default recommendation when anyone asked me which system they should go with. I say default recommendation, as it always comes down to what the person wants to shoot, and perhaps what lenses they already own. (For example, if someone has the use (and budget) for the 28-70 f/2L, that might be a reason to go with Canon.) But for many people, I think the Sony system offers much better options and value than the Canon system (which in the main offers lenses which are either large, heavy and _very _expensive or reasonably small and light but underwhelming at least in the 24mm to 100mm focal length range). And all the people I know who have gone with Sony (and I accept that is not many in the context of a worldwide camera market!) have been very happy with the choice. If Sigma, Tamron, Samyang, etc, were producing RF lenses (yes, I know Samyang has made a few), I expect I would still be enthusiastically recommending the Canon system. As things stand, I don't feel able to do that.

I know Canon Rumors is a pro-Canon website so what I'm saying may be unpopular, but since the introduction of the R system, I just cannot get excited about what Canon is offering, as optically fantastic as lenses such as the RF 85L may be. I haven't bought into the R system and I have no plan to do so. The existence of third party lenses for the R system would help Canon sell me a camera (and no doubt some lenses, flashes, etc, over time). The question is, how many people feel like I do, and how much (if at all!) does that hurt Canon's profit? I can only assume Canon is pretty confident the answer is not enough people to worry about.


----------



## jd7 (Feb 10, 2022)

Hi Tig
I think there is a typo in the last paragraph of your OP. You don't really mean to refer to "RF versions", do you?


----------



## TukTuk (Feb 10, 2022)

that will be Fuji X-Mount for APS-C of course... not RF-mount


----------



## TukTuk (Feb 10, 2022)

> when Sony opened their mount to third parties, the only lenses they had were old Minolta DSLR and SLR lenses."

when Canon created R-mount the only lenses Canon had were old EF-mount lenses... Nikon had only old F-mount lenses... Sony had A-mount lenses .... so ? 


> They needed lenses for their systems as fast as possible to try to have any hope of catching up to Canon and Nikon.

and boy they did to the point that Nikon got trashed to 3rd place and both C&N were left scrambling to move from dSLR to dSLM... Sony literally made dSLR the thing of the past... 

> Zeiss helped, but not enough, and their own efforts were just taking off. 

where all those Minolta people go ? Sony was making A-mount camera well before E-mount appeared


----------



## TukTuk (Feb 10, 2022)

> Fujifilm recently opened the X mount to licensees.

not recently... I assume you do not use Fuji at all otherwise you shall be aware that Zeiss made Touit lenses for X-Mount as early as 2013 ... that will be what ? 9+ years ago


----------



## RexxReviews (Feb 10, 2022)

Blue Zurich said:


> Canon should free up their proprietary tech and IP because members on Canon Rumors want a wider and less expensive lens selection. Ok.
> 
> Every so often we need a few lessons on '*JBYWIDMCWDI*'
> 
> (Just because you want it doesn't mean Canon will do it)


I don't buy this BS for a second. Other companies are doing fine making 3rd party lenses for RF. The new Viltox 85mm that just came out seems to be working great so far. If I had a choice of believe this or that Canon offered them x amount of $$$ to NOT make them I would believe the later first as Canon cant just prevent them from making a lens.


----------



## Blue Zurich (Feb 10, 2022)

jd7 said:


> On the other hand, if they don't free up their proprietary tech at least to the extent of allowing third party lenses (assuming that the lack of third party lenses is actually do to IP issues), do they risk losing out because people choose not to buy into the Canon system at all? Canon will have huge amounts of market data and smart people working out how to maximise their profit, so I'm going to assume Canon knows what it is doing from that point of view. However, for what it's worth, as someone who has shot Canon for about 20 years, I'm very jealous of the lenses availalbe for the Sony system and about two years ago Sony became my default recommendation when anyone asked me which system they should go with. I say default recommendation, as it always comes down to what the person wants to shoot, and perhaps what lenses they already own. (For example, if someone has the use (and budget) for the 28-70 f/2L, that might be a reason to go with Canon.) But for many people, I think the Sony system offers much better options and value than the Canon system (which in the main offers lenses which are either large, heavy and _very _expensive or reasonably small and light but underwhelming at least in the 24mm to 100mm focal length range). And all the people I know who have gone with Sony (and I accept that is not many in the context of a worldwide camera market!) have been very happy with the choice. If Sigma, Tamron, Samyang, etc, were producing RF lenses (yes, I know Samyang has made a few), I expect I would still be enthusiastically recommending the Canon system. As things stand, I don't feel able to do that.
> 
> I know Canon Rumors is a pro-Canon website so what I'm saying may be unpopular, but since the introduction of the R system, I just cannot get excited about what Canon is offering, as optically fantastic as lenses such as the RF 85L may be. I haven't bought into the R system and I have no plan to do so. The existence of third party lenses for the R system would help Canon sell me a camera (and no doubt some lenses, flashes, etc, over time). The question is, how many people feel like I do, and how much (if at all!) does that hurt Canon's profit? I can only assume Canon is pretty confident the answer is not enough people to worry about.


Well, they have never done it before so if you think maybe now things are different then keep hope alive. 
I for one would love it, I just won't hold my breath. I am in the camp that believes a huge gaping hole exists with the lack of non L 1.4 glass. That is the pricepoint and optical level I would enjoy using. 
I will be patient since the RF lineup is in it's infancy (ok, toddler phase) and if you do your own research into the history of EF lenses, the catalog didn't suddenly become full overnight by any means. 

*Insert Veruca Salt quote*


----------



## Blue Zurich (Feb 10, 2022)

RexxReviews said:


> I don't buy this BS for a second. Other companies are doing fine making 3rd party lenses for RF. The new Viltox 85mm that just came out seems to be working great so far. If I had a choice of believe this or that Canon offered them x amount of $$$ to NOT make them I would believe the later first as Canon cant just prevent them from making a lens.


Once again, they haven't licensed before and I would eat my hat if they did all of a sudden. I'm not saying I personally would be unhappy, I enjoy the odd Siggy or Tammy lens, esp the SP and G2 lines. They are an old school business and with their marketshare, why change things now? Not sure why stating the fact about how Canon has and is doing business is BS. Those boutique mfgs are nothing like Sony and Nikon to Canon....most likely hardly noticeable in the grand scheme of things. Chapeau to them, more is always better. As for anything being BS, hmmmm. Interesting how you gleaned that


----------



## jd7 (Feb 10, 2022)

Blue Zurich said:


> Well, they have never done it before so if you think maybe now things are different then keep hope alive.
> I for one would love it, I just won't hold my breath. I am in the camp that believes a huge gaping hole exists with the lack of non L 1.4 glass. That is the pricepoint and optical level I would enjoy using.
> I will be patient since the RF lineup is in it's infancy (ok, toddler phase) and if you do your own research into the history of EF lenses, the catalog didn't suddenly become full overnight by any means.
> 
> *Insert Veruca Salt quote*


Fair enough, but even if Canon didn't licence the IP previously, third party manufacturers reverse engineered things and seem to have been able to make lenses without infringing Canon's IP, and there were many third party lenses available. That is a very different situation to the present RF situation, where there is very little third party activity in relation to lenses. Whether that is because third party manufacturers have not yet reverse engineered things, because they have been unable to find a way to make lenses without infringing Canon's IP, or because they simply think it's not worth spending their time/money on the RF system, I do not know (although I find it hard to imagine it is because they don't think it would be worth making RF lenses). Whatever the reason though, the lack of third party RF lenses hurts the RF system in my eyes.


----------



## steen-ag (Feb 10, 2022)

dtaylor said:


> Canon is foolish for not doing this with RF from the beginning. The market is too large for Sigma and Tamron to ignore, so they will likely reverse engineer RF (which really means reverse engineering the high speed data pins, the other pins are the same). But we could already have Sigma/Tamron RF lenses if Canon had offered licensing.


I will never buy a Tamron or Sigma lens with autofocus as it often gives focus problems du to the reverse engineering. If Canon make some update in their software, them these lenses may not wok properly. You can't update the lenses without buying af speciel USB adapter.. Canon and Nikon will not make there protocols open like Sony.


----------



## Blue Zurich (Feb 10, 2022)

jd7 said:


> Fair enough, but even if Canon didn't licence the IP previously, third party manufacturers reverse engineered things and seem to have been able to make lenses without infringing Canon's IP, and there were many third party lenses available. That is a very different situation to the present RF situation, where there is very little third party activity in relation to lenses. Whether that is because third party manufacturers have not yet reverse engineered things, because they have been unable to find a way to make lenses without infringing Canon's IP, or because they simply think it's not worth spending their time/money on the RF system, I do not know (although I find it hard to imagine it is because they don't think it would be worth making RF lenses). Whatever the reason though, the lack of third party RF lenses hurts the RF system in my eyes.


I think you're just too early for what you desire. All those 3rd party EF lenses took many many years to arrive and pile up. I'm not certain why this point isn't being understood. You must give it time.


----------



## HMC11 (Feb 10, 2022)

Being waiting for Sigma to "address the R mount" since Canon launched the EOS R. Ended up owning 3L and 2 non-L RF lenses, so not sharing their lens protocol works for Canon in cases like mine.....sigh.


----------



## jd7 (Feb 10, 2022)

Blue Zurich said:


> I think you're just too early for what you desire. All those 3rd party EF lenses took many many years to arrive and pile up. I'm not certain why this point isn't being understood. You must give it time.


You may be right - and I hope you are! Reading CR and other photography websites it's easy to get the feeling that almost everyone shooting Canon has an R system camera, but it would be interesting to know how many R cameras are actually out there. I guess it's not impossible that the size of the market for RF lenses still isn't large enough yet for third party manufacturers to be rushing to divert their resources into RF lens production.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Feb 10, 2022)

deejjjaaaa said:


> when Canon created R-mount the only lenses Canon had were old EF-mount lenses... Nikon had only old F-mount lenses... Sony had A-mount lenses .... so ?
> 
> --> A-mount were/ are nowhere near as good as the existing EF/ F-mount line-up. Using A-mount lenses on great e-mount cameras just was no real option. Even though the EF/ F mount are great, some people simply don't want to use an adapter, so even if the A-mount were great, they needed lenses fast. Just as Canon and Nikon need to fill their DSLM line-up to a certain degree and with a speedy pace as well.





deejjjaaaa said:


> and boy they did to the point that Nikon got trashed to 3rd place and both C&N were left scrambling to move from dSLR to dSLM... Sony literally made dSLR the thing of the past...
> 
> --> totally agree


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Feb 10, 2022)

Blue Zurich said:


> Once again, they haven't licensed before and I would eat my hat if they did all of a sudden. I'm not saying I personally would be unhappy, I enjoy the odd Siggy or Tammy lens, esp the SP and G2 lines.


I agree with you. Canon won't license any competitor... but I still believe that even if Sigma has to reverse engineer the protocol (or parts of it) with tremendous cost, there still is a lot of money to be earned for them, especially AT THE MOMENT because Canons line-up lacks a few significant holes. You stated, F1.4 non-L line-up is not existent, I agree. 

For example: 
RF 50mm F1.8 STM --> 229 € 
RF 50mm F1.2 L --> 2.500 €


RF 16mm F2.8mm --> 339 €
RF 14-35mm F4 --> 1.819 €
RF 15-35mm F2.8 --> 2.599 €

There is a huge gap and Sigma would be more than welcome. 

Imho, I think people who are demanding for Canon opening their protocols do believe Canon will never fill these gaps. If Canon weren't to fill these gaps, opening the protocol would actually make a lot of sense. It is my personal believe Canon will address these gaps within the next years and therefore isn't opening the protocol because they'd hurt future sales. 
It would be very nice though to get a RF 50mm F1.4 non-L priced like the RF 35mm F1.8 or something similiar to show people these lenses are coming. Of course, in my case a reasonable priced UWA zoom would be welcome.


----------



## chasingrealness (Feb 10, 2022)

Great news! I own Sigma’s 135mm f/1.8 and the 100-400mm EF Mount lenses and they’re superb. I would replace my 100-400 in a heartbeat, though, if they made an RF Mount option that’s as sharp as the one I have but with modern, competitive autofocus; that is the one aspect of that particular lens I find to be lacking. I don’t mind the weight when the sharpness is so on point. Attached image shot on ROS RP-mounted 100-400mm last August.


----------



## jd7 (Feb 10, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> Two comments/questions. First, I don't understand some of their DG DN lens focal length choices, especially the 65mm and 24mm macro, and the order in which they are being introduced. Can somebody make sense of it?
> 
> Second, are they really going to try to reverse engineer the Fuji X, Nikon Z and Canon R lens mounts or have they convinced the manufacturers to tell them the protocols?


Regarding your first point, I think Sigma sometimes just tries something a bit different, rather than always putting out lenses which have direct competitors already on the market. Personally I think the 65mm option is interesting, although I wish it was faster than f/2. I often feel like 50mm is too short (at least given I have a 35mm) but 85mm is tighter than I'd really like, so something about the 65mm focal length seems like potentially a good compromise for me to team with a 35mm. Samyang make a 75mm f/1.8 for the Sony system which also seems like an interesting option to me. When I use zooms, I seem to end up at 70mm quite frequently (whether using a 24-70 or 70-200) so a fast prime somewhere around that focal length might work for me. As for the 24mm macro, it's not a lens I've considered but the idea of being able to get close up to your subject while still having a reasonable amount of background in the shot sounds like it could have its uses.


----------



## Blue Zurich (Feb 10, 2022)

jd7 said:


> Regarding your first point, I think Sigma sometimes just tries something a bit different, rather than always putting out lenses which have direct competitors already on the market. Personally I think the 65mm option is interesting, although I wish it was faster than f/2. I often feel like 50mm is too short (at least given I have a 35mm) but 85mm is tighter than I'd really like, so something about the 65mm focal length seems like potentially a good compromise for me to team with a 35mm. Samyang make a 75mm f/1.8 for the Sony system which also seems like an interesting option to me. When I use zooms, I seem to end up at 70mm quite frequently (whether using a 24-70 or 70-200) so a fast prime somewhere around that focal length might work for me. As for the 24mm macro, it's not a lens I've considered but the idea of being able to get close up to your subject while still having a reasonable amount of background in the shot sounds like it could have its uses.


Crop body with the EF 40 pancake is a somewhat popular choice as well. I won't get hemmed in with standard and famous focal lengths as I'm personally a frequent user of 21, 40 and 135mm.


----------



## RexxReviews (Feb 10, 2022)

Blue Zurich said:


> Once again, they haven't licensed before and I would eat my hat if they did all of a sudden. I'm not saying I personally would be unhappy, I enjoy the odd Siggy or Tammy lens, esp the SP and G2 lines. They are an old school business and with their marketshare, why change things now? Not sure why stating the fact about how Canon has and is doing business is BS. Those boutique mfgs are nothing like Sony and Nikon to Canon....most likely hardly noticeable in the grand scheme of things. Chapeau to them, more is always better. As for anything being BS, hmmmm. Interesting how you gleaned that


I have worked for Canon and Sigma


----------



## Bob Howland (Feb 10, 2022)

RexxReviews said:


> I have worked for Canon and Sigma


In what capacity?


----------



## Blue Zurich (Feb 10, 2022)

RexxReviews said:


> I have worked for Canon and Sigma


Actually you saying that now makes me think you should know better when it comes to their intellectual property and licensing of mount technology not to mention their business ideology.


----------



## AJ (Feb 10, 2022)

In principle there is no need to reverse-engineer the RF communications protocol. RF also speaks EF. Sigma could use a physical RF mount and communicate through the EF protocol. In essence, the camera wouldn't know the difference between that an an EF lens with adapter.


----------



## melgross (Feb 10, 2022)

jd7 said:


> On the other hand, if they don't free up their proprietary tech at least to the extent of allowing third party lenses (assuming that the lack of third party lenses is actually due to IP issues), do they risk losing out because people choose not to buy into the Canon system at all? Canon will have huge amounts of market data and smart people working out how to maximise their profit, so I'm going to assume Canon knows what it is doing from that point of view. However, for what it's worth, as someone who has shot Canon for about 20 years, I'm very jealous of the lenses availalbe for the Sony system and about two years ago Sony became my default recommendation when anyone asked me which system they should go with. I say default recommendation, as it always comes down to what the person wants to shoot, and perhaps what lenses they already own. (For example, if someone has the use (and budget) for the 28-70 f/2L, that might be a reason to go with Canon.) But for many people, I think the Sony system offers much better options and value than the Canon system (which in the main offers lenses which are either large, heavy and _very _expensive or reasonably small and light but underwhelming at least in the 24mm to 100mm focal length range). And all the people I know who have gone with Sony (and I accept that is not many in the context of a worldwide camera market!) have been very happy with the choice. If Sigma, Tamron, Samyang, etc, were producing RF lenses (yes, I know Samyang has made a few), I expect I would still be enthusiastically recommending the Canon system. As things stand, I don't feel able to do that.
> 
> I know Canon Rumors is a pro-Canon website so what I'm saying may be unpopular, but since the introduction of the R system, I just cannot get excited about what Canon is offering, as optically fantastic as lenses such as the RF 85L may be. I haven't bought into the R system and I have no plan to do so. The existence of third party lenses for the R system would help Canon sell me a camera (and no doubt some lenses, flashes, etc, over time). The question is, how many people feel like I do, and how much (if at all!) does that hurt Canon's profit? I can only assume Canon is pretty confident the answer is not enough people to worry about.


Canon isn’t stopping any third party from reverse engineering any of their protocols, mechanical characteristics or electronics. Like Nikon, they’re just not giving, or licensing any of it. They can’t legally do so. So third parties are free to do whatever they need to, to make their lenses compatible.

you might note that Sigma, and others, have been waiting to see how sales are going before investing millions on new mounts. We can be sure they’ve at least done some investigation. Sigma stated a few months ago that they were going to come out with lenses on the RF mount. So we know it’s happening. They’ve also recently stated that the electronic part won’t be too hard as they already know what most of the pins do because they’re the same functions as those from the EF mount, for which they already make lenses. The mechanical part is easy. I could do that myself in my own shops, if I really wanted to.


----------



## melgross (Feb 10, 2022)

AJ said:


> In principle there is no need to reverse-engineer the RF communications protocol. RF also speaks EF. Sigma could use a physical RF mount and communicate through the EF protocol. In essence, the camera wouldn't know the difference between that an an EF lens with adapter.


That’s the basics. Canon has extra pins that transmit more information. It why Sigma said that they already knew MOST of what the pins are doing. Those are from the EF era. But the have to figure out what the rest do.


----------



## Blue Zurich (Feb 10, 2022)

melgross said:


> That’s the basics. Canon has extra pins that transmit more information. It why Sigma said that they already knew MOST of what the pins are doing. Those are from the EF era. But the have to figure out what the rest do.


I cannot quote a Sigma source but I was under the impression they were developing Fujifilm X mounts prior to any discussion about RF. One step at a time?


----------



## jd7 (Feb 11, 2022)

melgross said:


> Canon isn’t stopping any third party from reverse engineering any of their protocols, mechanical characteristics or electronics. Like Nikon, they’re just not giving, or licensing any of it. They can’t legally do so. So third parties are free to do whatever they need to, to make their lenses compatible.
> 
> you might note that Sigma, and others, have been waiting to see how sales are going before investing millions on new mounts. We can be sure they’ve at least done some investigation. Sigma stated a few months ago that they were going to come out with lenses on the RF mount. So we know it’s happening. They’ve also recently stated that the electronic part won’t be too hard as they already know what most of the pins do because they’re the same functions as those from the EF mount, for which they already make lenses. The mechanical part is easy. I could do that myself in my own shops, if I really wanted to.


I'm not sure it is as simple as saying Canon isn't stopping third parties from reverse engineering their protocols. It is one thing to reverse engineer protocols to understand how they work, but once the third party has done that, the third party still needs to come up with a system which can achieve the desired results without infringing Canon's patents or any other relevant intellectual property. I'm sure that Canon can make that more or less difficult depending on how Canon designs its system, so the question is whether Canon's design of the RF system goes out of its way to make it hard for others to produce compatible products without infrining Canon's IP. The lack of third party lenses (and the fact Samyang seems to have stopped selling its RF 85mm f/1.4 AF lens, albeit I think that lens is still available under the Rokinon brand at least in some places) has fueled rumours online about Canon trying to block third party manufacturers, although I have no idea if there is any truth in any of that, and as you say it may be that third party manufacturers are simply waiting for the size of the market for RF lenses to increase before spending time/money developing products for it - or there may be some other reason. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think the answer may well be that they are simply waiting for the size of the RF market to increase. After all, I would have thought that if nothing else, a third party able to make EF lenses should be able to make an RF mount lens which works even if the camera thinks it's an EF lens (ie the lens would have effectively an adapter for the electronics even if it didn't need one for the optics). That would be less than ideal since it would mean the lens was unable to take advantage of everything the RF mount has to offer, but nevertheless if the market was big enough to make it commercially worthwhile, you would think it would be happening.

Are you able to provide a link to where Sigma has stated they are going to come out with RF lenses? I was not aware they had ever made a firm statement about that, and I would be interested to read it.


----------



## scyrene (Feb 11, 2022)

jd7 said:


> I know Canon Rumors is a pro-Canon website so what I'm saying may be unpopular, but since the introduction of the R system, I just cannot get excited about what Canon is offering, as optically fantastic as lenses such as the RF 85L may be. I haven't bought into the R system and I have no plan to do so. The existence of third party lenses for the R system would help Canon sell me a camera (and no doubt some lenses, flashes, etc, over time). The question is, how many people feel like I do, and how much (if at all!) does that hurt Canon's profit? I can only assume Canon is pretty confident the answer is not enough people to worry about.


Genuine question: what would excite you that they haven't released?


----------



## scyrene (Feb 11, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> I agree with you. Canon won't license any competitor... but I still believe that even if Sigma has to reverse engineer the protocol (or parts of it) with tremendous cost, there still is a lot of money to be earned for them, especially AT THE MOMENT because Canons line-up lacks a few significant holes. You stated, F1.4 non-L line-up is not existent, I agree.
> 
> For example:
> RF 50mm F1.8 STM --> 229 €
> ...


With regard to a mid-range 50mm ~f/1.4, people on here have been requesting an updated version for years (obviously EF until recently). There must be some reason Canon hasn't seen this as a priority. So I wouldn't be surprised if an RF version never comes.


----------



## jd7 (Feb 11, 2022)

scyrene said:


> Genuine question: what would excite you that they haven't released?


For a start, lenses comparable to the Sony 35mm f/1.8, Sony 35mm f/1.4 GM, Sony 55mm f/1.8, Sony 85mm f/1.8, Sigma 65mm f/2, Sigma 85mm f/1,4 DN, Samyang 35mm f/1.8, Samyang 45mm f/1.8, Samyang 75mm f/1.8, Tamron 35-150 f/2-2.8. And I could add Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 DN and Tamron 70-180 f/2.8 simply because of their prices compared with the comparable Canon lenses. I'm not saying I would buy all of those lenses, but they are all lenses I would seriously consider. And no, I don't see the RF 35mm f/1.8, RF 50mm f/1.8, or RF 85mm f/2 as being reasonably comparable to the lenses in my list above, although the RF 35mm f/1.8 perhaps isn't too far away. I'm just not that impressed with the images those Canon lenses produce. I'm not saying they are bad, of course, but I think the competition is better (albeit at higher prices at least in some cases).


----------



## scyrene (Feb 11, 2022)

jd7 said:


> For a start, lenses comparable to the Sony 35mm f/1.8, Sony 35mm f/1.4 GM, Sony 55mm f/1.8, Sony 85mm f/1.8, Sigma 65mm f/2, Sigma 85mm f/1,4 DN, Samyang 35mm f/1.8, Samyang 45mm f/1.8, Samyang 75mm f/1.8, Tamron 35-150 f/2-2.8. And I could add Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 DN and Tamron 70-180 f/2.8 simply because of their prices compared with the comparable Canon lenses. I'm not saying I would buy all of those lenses, but they are all lenses I would seriously consider. And no, I don't see the RF 35mm f/1.8, RF 50mm f/1.8, or RF 85mm f/2 as being reasonably comparable to the lenses in my list above, although the RF 35mm f/1.8 perhaps isn't too far away. I'm just not that impressed with the images those Canon lenses produce. I'm not saying they are bad, of course, but I think the competition is better (albeit at higher prices at least in some cases).


Thanks! How come so many covering such a narrow range of focal lengths? I guess I'm out of the loop with regard to that sort of thing (portraiture? Street photography?). I'm sure some will appear in the next few years, in the meantime is adapting EF glass a possibility?


----------



## jd7 (Feb 12, 2022)

scyrene said:


> Thanks! How come so many covering such a narrow range of focal lengths? I guess I'm out of the loop with regard to that sort of thing (portraiture? Street photography?). I'm sure some will appear in the next few years, in the meantime is adapting EF glass a possibility?


Sorry scyrene, I may have misled you. I wouldn't think of actually owning that many lenses covering similar focal lengths. I think they are all options worth serious consideration but in the end I would select only a few of them to be part of my kit.

Adapting EF glass is certainly possible, but the attraction to me of the lenses I mentioned is that they are relatively small and light for their class, and in many cases much more reasonably priced than Canon's offerings. Adapting EF glass doesn't give me the same benefit of relatively small and light lenses, and isn't particuarly cheap either (I checked the price of an EF 35mm f/2 IS lens recently and they are selling for about A$1000 or more now, which seems out of control to me). The allure of mirrorless to me is the AF and the potential for my kit to be a little smaller and lighter while still delivering very good image quality, but would come at the cost of having to use an EVF (I know some people like them but I strongly prefer OVF), shorter battery life (although that is a small point in the scheme of things these days), and if I stayed with Canon what to me seem relatively high prices for much of the R system gear. At the moment, at least in terms of what I am looking for, the Sony system is delivering on the promise of relatively small, light and affordable lenses in a way which Canon's system is not, which puts a dampener on my enthusiasm for the RF system. Hopefully things will change in the next few years, as you say. (I may or may not still be shooting Canon by then, but even if I was not, I think it would be a good thing.)


----------



## allanP (Feb 12, 2022)

Blue Zurich said:


> Sigma Art RF and Tamron SP RF will come I'm sure, we just need to be patient.
> Hopefully they willl fill some focal length gaps and address filter usage and non bulbous elements in UWA (Laowa 15 Zero D but with AF style)
> Pancakes are always welcome as well!


I seriously fear that Sony, as the largest Tamron shareholder, would have something against it...


----------



## Blue Zurich (Feb 12, 2022)

allanP said:


> I seriously fear that Sony, as the largest Tamron shareholder, would have something against it...


They didn't have anything against it with EF.


----------



## Czardoom (Feb 13, 2022)

jd7 said:


> ...
> 
> I know Canon Rumors is a pro-Canon website so what I'm saying may be unpopular, but since the introduction of the R system, I just cannot get excited about what Canon is offering, as optically fantastic as lenses such as the RF 85L may be. I haven't bought into the R system and I have no plan to do so. The existence of third party lenses for the R system would help Canon sell me a camera (and no doubt some lenses, flashes, etc, over time). The question is, how many people feel like I do, and how much (if at all!) does that hurt Canon's profit? I can only assume Canon is pretty confident the answer is not enough people to worry about.


The existence of third party lenses is totally irrelavent for me when it comes to the R system. If I want less expensive, but high quality lenses for my R6, I will (and have) bought used EF lenses. I am not opposed to the idea of buying third party and I bought the Sigma 100-400 for EF in the past (in fact, bought two copies over the years) and they were both quite soft at 400mm, so were sold.


----------



## jayli (Feb 13, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> Two comments/questions. First, I don't understand some of their DG DN lens focal length choices, especially the 65mm and 24mm macro, and the order in which they are being introduced. Can somebody make sense of it?
> 
> Second, are they really going to try to reverse engineer the Fuji X, Nikon Z and Canon R lens mounts or have they convinced the manufacturers to tell them the protocols?


Buying the protocols at an extremely high price will very likely be required, I don't even think Canon will even sell their mount protocol to Sigma and Tamron anymore. Yongnuo had just gotten sued by Canon for their RF mount lenses. I think what happened is Canon doesn't want to open their mount to 3rd party developers since the RF glasses are pretty profitable (high price vs low design costs, because of the mount). RED is probably the only one that has an official relationship with Canon, very likely Canon traded their mount with RED for the internal RAW recording.


----------



## jd7 (Feb 13, 2022)

jayli said:


> Buying the protocols at an extremely high price will very likely be required, I don't even think Canon will even sell their mount protocol to Sigma and Tamron anymore. Yongnuo had just gotten sued by Canon for their RF mount lenses. I think what happened is Canon doesn't want to open their mount to 3rd party developers since the RF glasses are pretty profitable (high price vs low design costs, because of the mount). RED is probably the only one that has an official relationship with Canon, very likely Canon traded their mount with RED for the internal RAW recording.


I haven't read any media reports about Canon suing Yongnuo, and it sounds fairly unlikely to me. If Canon has sued, in which court? What exactly is Canon alleging? I would be interested to know more.


----------



## entoman (Feb 13, 2022)

allanP said:


> I seriously fear that Sony, as the largest Tamron shareholder, would have something against it...


It would be in Sony's best interests if Tamron sold *more* lenses.

Canon sell more cameras than any other brand, so Tamron would make much greater profits (and hence so would Sony) if they produced RF mount lenses.

Canon are in the business to make money, they want us to buy *their* lenses, so it would make poor business sense for them to open the RF mount to third parties. So Tamron, Sigma etc will have to reverse-engineer.

They could of course simply port existing mirrorless lens designs onto RF by using only the EF pins, but if they are to do the job properly and ensure full compatibility with new RF bodies, they'd need to use the extra 2 RF pins, which entails analysing current and potential future data flowing to and from the body and lens circuitry.


----------



## entoman (Feb 13, 2022)

dtaylor said:


> Canon is foolish.......


You really think so? Then why are they the biggest selling camera brand?


----------



## allanP (Feb 13, 2022)

Blue Zurich said:


> They didn't have anything against it with EF.


At EF we weren't in that position. When EF came out, Sony didn't produce mirrorless or DSLRs.
RF mount support would make Canon cameras even more attractive. I doubt if that's Sony's goal.


----------



## RexxReviews (Feb 16, 2022)

jd7 said:


> I haven't read any media reports about Canon suing Yongnuo, and it sounds fairly unlikely to me. If Canon has sued, in which court? What exactly is Canon alleging? I would be interested to know more.


What is even more funny about that is that Canon acquired Yongnuo back in 2015.


----------



## Blue Zurich (Feb 16, 2022)

RexxReviews said:


> What is even more funny about that is that Canon acquired Yongnuo back in 2015.


Most folks believe it was an April Fools prank.

Only FStoppers made noise of it and it went semi viral.

Please share any relevant info you have on an actual statement or financials from either entity.


----------



## Fischer (Feb 17, 2022)

Has to be the RF mount. What else would they focus on getting to the market. I for one will warmly welcome more competition and choices. And with mirrorless at least the largest downside of third-party lenses - lack of AF-accuracy - is gone.


----------



## RexxReviews (Feb 17, 2022)

Fischer said:


> Has to be the RF mount. What else would they focus on getting to the market. I for one will warmly welcome more competition and choices. And with mirrorless at least the largest downside of third-party lenses - lack of AF-accuracy - is gone.


From fujirumors.com "So, it’s out: according to information we have received, Sigma will announce its first autofocus X mount lenses on February 21."
Looks like Fuji-X is the new mount
Maybe Next year.


----------



## RexxReviews (Feb 21, 2022)

Whelp, it was the Xmount. Maybe next year guys.


----------



## Rofocale (Feb 21, 2022)

Have to admit, the lack of affordable lens options that match those available for Sony’s Mirrorless range is one of the reasons I am really mulling over selling and switching over. As an example, the Sony 200-600 has no real contemporary in the Canon RF line up, and the Sigma Sports 150-600 EF lens is seriously outclassed by the new DG DN version. 

Hindsight is a wonderful thing and nobody could have predicted the chip shortage and COVID supply chain woes, and how it might affect development and release pipelines. However, if I could turn back time to last year before I picked up an R5 and C70 for work I would definitely put them down and step over into the Sony isle. Or, at least, better manage my own expectations.

I really don’t give a crap about brand loyalty - they’re all in it to make a profit - I just want the best tool for the job. I have no time for fan boys or brand apologists. The products offered by companies like Sigma and Tamron actually have a big hand in plugging the gaps and elevating a single brand to a position where it’s hybrid line up is a viable candidate. Right now, only Sony seems to occupy that position.


----------

