Sigma: No plans to release RF full-frame lenses yet

[blurryeyedbeast]

You haven't answered my main question though... let's have some context to your points...
If not, then a rant into a vacuum is what it is.

Internet forums exist solely for ranting into a vacuum!

Basically I want to migrate to RF when the 5Mk2 comes out because the mk2s (or even numbers) always seem to have things fixed or that were left out ... but I am balking at the lens upgrade costs. The RF-EF adapter with filter slot does catch my eye though ... And some EF lenses can be had for a song now... Decisions decisions.

 

[David - Sydney]

Internet forums exist solely for ranting into a vacuum!

Basically I want to migrate to RF when the 5Mk2 comes out because the mk2s (or even numbers) always seem to have things fixed or that were left out ... but I am balking at the lens upgrade costs. The RF-EF adapter with filter slot does catch my eye though ... And some EF lenses can be had for a song now... Decisions decisions.

I preordered the R5 4 years ago after selling my 5Div and have no regrets and no plans to upgrade. I started with one RF lens and adapted the rest until it was worthwhile for me to migrate.

Rather than waiting for the R5ii, buy the discounted R5 now and save money for the lenses if you need them. Even if you upgrade bodies later, you won't lose much and the R5 is so much better (besides battery life) than previous DLSRs.

 

[Del Paso]

Yes, so forgotten. Such a relic of history.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1601518-REG/canon_rf_70_200mm_f_4_lens.html

I didn't know I owned a relic. Maybe I'll build it a shrine.

 

[blurryeyedbeast]

I preordered the R5 4 years ago after selling my 5Div and have no regrets and no plans to upgrade. I started with one RF lens and adapted the rest until it was worthwhile for me to migrate.

I am happy that your plan worked for you.

Rather than waiting for the R5ii, buy the discounted R5 now and save money for the lenses if you need them. Even if you upgrade bodies later, you won't lose much and the R5 is so much better (besides battery life) than previous DLSRs.

Thank you for the suggestion.

 

[chrysoberyl]

I'm afraid I'm not familiar with that style of shooting but browsing the listings on Wex I see a Laowa 10mm f2.8 Zero-D, Laowa 4mm f2.8 Circular Fisheye, Laowa 12mm f2.8 Zero-D, 15mm f2 Zero-D, Samyang 14mm f/2.8, TTArtisan 10mm f2, Laowa Argus 28mm f1.2, TTArtisan 21mm f/1.5, TTArtisan 11mm f/2.8, amongst others - I have no idea if any are suitable but there are a fair few wide/wide lenses (depending on your parameters) out there now.

I shoot astro with a Samyang 14mm 2.4, Sigma EF 20mm 1.4 and Sigma 28mm EF 1.4. Wider and narrower do not interest me, but thanks for mentioning! Of those which fall in my preferred range, they have mediocre resolution wide open and/or distinct coma. Again, thank you for your research!

I hope for 14mm and 20mm Sigma lenses for FF RF, similar to the DG DN versions.

 

[blurryeyedbeast]

As an example of what I mean by affordable lenses, take Tamron's FE mount 50-300 for $799. FE mount, not RF.

 

[neuroanatomist]

As an example of what I mean by affordable lenses, take Tamron's FE mount 50-300 for $799. FE mount, not RF.

The Canon EF 70-300 II with the RF adapter is about the same size, 1/3-stop faster through the range (granted, not significant), and $70 cheaper including the cost of the adapter (or $200 cheaper if you already have the adapter).

Sorry, what point were you trying to make with your example?

 

[blurryeyedbeast]

Sorry, what point were you trying to make with your example?

If you don't see the point of my post then it isn't worth my time trying to explain it to you.

 

[Del Paso]

As an example of what I mean by affordable lenses, take Tamron's FE mount 50-300 for $799. FE mount, not RF.

And this lens is optically acceptable, nothing more. Why should I buy an R5 II and, just to save a few bucks, buy a lens which would not even put a 12MP sensor to shame? Just like mounting cheap Nankyang tires on a corvette...
For me, a waste of money. I'd rather wait a few more months to get an RF 100-500.
A high quality sensor asks for high quality lenses, not for the cheapest ones available. Yes, I know, there's a price to pay.
And yes, as Neuroanatomist just wrote, the EF 70-300 is optically and mechanically a much better lens, for less money.
Unless you're one of the Tamron fanboys...

 

[koenkooi]

And this lens is optically acceptable, nothing more. Why should I buy an R5 II and, just to save a few bucks, buy a lens which would not even put a 12MP sensor to shame? Just like mounting cheap Nankyang tires on a corvette...
For me, a waste of money. I'd rather wait a few more months to get an RF 100-500.
A high quality sensor asks for high quality lenses, not for the cheapest ones available. Yes, I know, there's a price to pay.
And yes, as Neuroanatomist just wrote, the EF 70-300 is optically and mechanically a much better lens, for less money.
Unless you're one of the Tamron fanboys...

Tamron zooms the Nikon way, don’t they?

 

[justaCanonuser]

I mean it's possible Sigma itself just sees a bigger commercial opportunity with APS-C RF lenses, given the general lack of Canon versions. And the available development time has been devoted to those first.

I can imagine that the big gaps in Canon's APS-C RF line-up give Sigma the opportunity to make a first move and come later with FF lenses.

 

[blurryeyedbeast]

Just like mounting cheap Nankyang tires on a corvette...

That all depends on how and where you drive the corvette. If that's your drive to work, why on earth would you waste expensive tread on that daily grind? In other words I don't think your comparison is that great.

 

[Del Paso]

Tamron zooms the Nikon way, don’t they?

No idea. I was never interested in Tamrons. In my Nikon times, I found it quite disturbing, after 6 Minolta years. I could never use Nikons and Canons at the same time. It would make me mad.
But we shouldn't forget that in the seventies and eighties, Nikon was THE professional camera. Nikon F2 :

 

[Del Paso]

That all depends on how and where you drive the corvette. If that's your drive to work, why on earth would you waste expensive tread on that daily grind? In other words I don't think your comparison is that great.

Unless you have to slam the brakes on in city trafic, in order not to kill a child...
Most accidents occur on the daily way to work or close to where you live. A few yards can make the difference between life and death.
Its not only stupid, but also ridiculous to save money at the cost of braking distance. You can afford a Corvette but not the adequate tires? Buy a Yugo.
Wrong logic, sacrificing safety for money...

 

[neuroanatomist]

If you don't see the point of my post then it isn't worth my time trying to explain it to you.

If you don’t see the sarcasm of my rhetorical question then it isn't worth my time trying to explain it to you.

 

[blurryeyedbeast]

Unless you have to slam the brakes on in city trafic, in order not to kill a child...
Most accidents occur on the daily way to work or close to where you live. A few yards can make the difference between life and death.
Its not only stupid, but also ridiculous to save money at the cost of braking distance. You can afford a Corvette but not the adequate tires?

Using this argument, nobody should use Nankyang tires, regardless of the car. Is that what you want to say? That unless you are using the best tires you're going to have accidents and kill children?

What you're also saying is that people that can't afford corvette worthy tires are going to have more accidents than otherwise.

i have never had an insurance company ask about my tires when giving me a quote, are they doing it all wrong too?

Driving is a very complex activity (more so than we give it credit for) and there are many factors that can come into play here, far more than just tires. E.g. Doing 30 in a 35 zone rather than 40 does far more to reduce the risk of an accident than "better tires." You are quite right about where most accidents occur and IMHO the reason for that is state of mind, not equipment being used.

We all love car analogies, because we can argue back and forth about something else we are all familiar with, but they very very rarely work (IMHO yours does not but we can keep arguing about it if you like.)

 

[blurryeyedbeast]

If you don’t see the sarcasm of my rhetorical question then it isn't worth my time trying to explain it to you.

Sarcasm? Here I was thinking it was a weak attempt at trolling. Silly me.

 

[Del Paso]

Using this argument, nobody should use Nankyang tires, regardless of the car. Is that what you want to say? That unless you are using the best tires you're going to have accidents and kill children?

What you're also saying is that people that can't afford corvette worthy tires are going to have more accidents than otherwise.

i have never had an insurance company ask about my tires when giving me a quote, are they doing it all wrong too?

Driving is a very complex activity (more so than we give it credit for) and there are many factors that can come into play here, far more than just tires. E.g. Doing 30 in a 35 zone rather than 40 does far more to reduce the risk of an accident than "better tires." You are quite right about where most accidents occur and IMHO the reason for that is state of mind, not equipment being used.

We all love car analogies, because we can argue back and forth about something else we are all familiar with, but they very very rarely work (IMHO yours does not but we can keep arguing about it if you like.)

I've been too long in car R&D to accept such arguments. It is simply silly to save money on tires, since better tires DO reduce braking distances.
But if you know better...your car, your tires, your risks.
And please, don't make me say what I didn't say.

 

[justaCanonuser]

No idea. I was never interested in Tamrons. In my Nikon times, I found it quite disturbing, after 6 Minolta years. I could never use Nikons and Canons at the same time. It would make me mad.
But we shouldn't forget that in the seventies and eighties, Nikon was THE professional camera. Nikon F2 :

I sometimes use a Nikon body, since my wife has a big Nikon gear, but that causes indeed trouble in my motor memory. One example is that Nikon has located the two main control wheels at the front top and backside top positions of the grip side. If you are used to that, it is quite smart, but if you are used to Canon, your thumb is always seeking a wheel at the wrong position. With the menus it is easier, since Nikon rotated their menu system basically by 90 degrees compared with Canon.

We have still three Nikon FM-2 bodies in use. One proved to work flawlessly in Siberian winter at -40 °C, that's tech from Nikon's great period as leading pro camera manufacturer. My wife didn't trust the batteries of her Nikon DSLRs, since they tend to break down at much higher temperatures in middle European winters. Canon's batteries are less prone to lower temperatures, we found out. We guess that Nikon buys cheaper battery elements to save money.

 

[justaCanonuser]

Rather than waiting for the R5ii, buy the discounted R5 now and save money for the lenses if you need them. Even if you upgrade bodies later, you won't lose much and the R5 is so much better (besides battery life) than previous DLSRs.

I agree, spending most money for good lenses over camera bodies is the smarter approach today. Times in which you bought an expensive camera once for your whole life, be it a Leica ore Nikon, are over since decades.