That may be true for Tamron but I thought the most popular Sigma lens is their 24-70 f/2.8 Art. My guess is that the risk of incompatibility is the reason Sigma wouldn't make R mount lenses except under license. I'd love to know how much the licensing fee is. Would $50 to $100/lens be reasonable? I'd also like to know how much help Canon gave Sigma in developing the control & interface firmware. That's the part that could cause nightmares.
Yes, and since that experience when on DSLR, I stopped looking beyond Canon... also, the resale value is better for Canon lenses.... when I traded old lenses to fund new purchases....
Yes, and since that experience when on DSLR, I stopped looking beyond Canon... also, the resale value is better for Canon lenses.... when I traded old lenses to fund new purchases....
I also got quite a few compact EF primes, like EF 35mm F2 IS, EF 24mm f2.8; EF 85mm F1.8 too before I got the F1.4L & sold it.... though 85mm F1.8 have weakness, I feel it is a photographer job to overcome that weaknesses.... and maximize the strength.... and adapted them to the R bodies without any issues at all....
I always feel you can adapt lenses to save money... so I do not know why they are complaining... maybe they are purist.... RF to RF.... lol....
I now have 3 adapted Canon LTM lenses (19mm f/3.5, 50mm f/1.2, 100mm f/2) from the 60's, real flare is much better than software flare.
I'm putting a few bucks away each month for the 50mm f/0.95. It'll take a lot of months.
Actually... the issue, based on my observation, seems to be they want a Ferrari for the price of a Suzuki???
Those OM cameras are not only tanks, but nobody makes an APS-C camera that comes close to the OM-1, in my opinion. (I've owned FF, APS-C and M4/3rds camera since 2014). Their lenses are also top-notch. Despite being a Canon digital owner since 2004, with every Canon release since I bought my first Olympus m4/3 camera in 2014, I have wished it was close to being as good as whatever Olympus camera I had at the time. As a bird photographer, I'm still waiting for Canon (or anyone) to have in-camera focus limiting like my Olympus (now OM System) cameras have had for 8 years or so. That feature alone, makes it my bird camera of choice as you can effectively eliminate focus hunting. If you find nothing wrong with APS-C, then there is no reason not to try M4/3.
Agree!
I almost bought an OM-1 and four lenses. Ultimately I went with inertia and bought an R7 instead. It seemed that buying into a second system would create as many problems as it solved. (I own about 20 EF lenses including six high speed primes and four TS-E lenses. I've been collecting EF lenses, mostly L, for 25 years,) The R7 is about the same size and weight as the OM-1 while the R10/R50/R100 are about the same size and weight as the OM-5 and seem too small. The problem with the Canon APS-C RF bodies has always been the lenses but the Sigma lenses seem to be "good enough". Sigma just needs to introduce a 50-135 f/2.8 DC DN C and maybe port their 70 macro to RF.
Then you'd love my 5D3 and 5Ds. After using an R7 and R6-2, they feel I'm holding a brick, a heavy brick.
I do love my 5 DIV, yet, mirrorless cameras have far too many advantages.
Well, it's be the equivalent of a 24-120/4, as far as what the images look like. It exposes like a f/2.8, allowing you to cut ISO or increase shutter speed a stop, but it images like an f/4 or so.
The addition of longer Sigma RF-S lenses is more a wish than a prediction. Certainly, a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 DG DN S could serve as the long part of the RF-S trinity, but compared with the 10-18 f/2.8 DC DN C and 18-50 f/2.8 DC DN C, it's large and heavy. Hence, the desire for a small and light 50-135 f/2.8 DC DN C lens.
