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

[scyrene]

Someone else replied, Yongnou are making the affordable Canon RF lenses. 50/1.8 and 35/2. Canon don't have RF 35/2 so I buy other brand.

The RF 35 f/1.8 is the clear successor to the EF 35 f/2. What don't you like about it?

 

[scyrene]

But $150 is still more than all of the EF versions.

Are you accounting for inflation? Also by now there are a lot of secondhand RF 50s on the market, that might save you a little if you want to get one.

 

[blurryeyedbeast]

Are you accounting for inflation? Also by now there are a lot of secondhand RF 50s on the market, that might save you a little if you want to get one.

I get what you're saying. Maybe in 5 years if Canon doesn't pump the prices up they'll effectively be cheaper. I am just looking at sticker prices, without any tax even.

Inflation is tricky to use because it isn't the same everywhere. For example, Japan had negative inflation for a long period of time. And then there's exchange rates. Enough to do your head in without a massively complex Excel spreadsheet. Sticker prices for me

 

[neuroanatomist]

The RF 35 f/1.8 is the clear successor to the EF 35 f/2. What don't you like about it?

I'd view it as the successor to the EF 35mm f/2 IS USM. That lens launched at $849 and is currently $599, while the RF version is 1/3 stop faster, has (half) macro capability, launched at $499 and is currently $399. But as we all know, RF lenses are always more expensive than their EF predecessor.

 

[DhlcadR6]

It is a really strange situation where Canon hasn't repackaged more of the EF-M lenses in RF-S mounts. It "should" be relatively simple to do.

Canon is moving all its production power to RF, Taiwan and Malaysia factories are making cheap RF lenses in full force. Tbh other than 22/2 &32/1.4, other EF-M isn't desperately needed. And Sigma is saving the day.

 

[blurryeyedbeast]

But as we all know, RF lenses are always more expensive than their EF predecessor.

ok, what does the list of lenses look like where the RF is cheaper than the same EF? (Same meaning identical focal length, f-stop, and features such as IS) You found one, are there others?

 

[neuroanatomist]

ok, what does the list of lenses look like where the RF is cheaper than the same EF? (Same meaning identical focal length, f-stop, and features such as IS) You found one, are there others?

As you imply, it's a short list. Most of them are more expensive, but most of them offer something their EF predecessor lacks (image stabilization, smaller size/weight, optically superior, etc.). The few that do not offer more are also not more expensive (24-105/4L, 400/2.8L, 600/4L). Personally, I am biased toward the L series lenses.

But more significant IMO are the RF lenses for which there is no EF counterpart, or at best an indirect one. Lenses like the 16/2.8, 15-30, and 100-400 are all relatively inexpensive and offer focal lengths that were previously available only in far more expensive L series lenses, and they do so while delivering very good image quality.

 

[DhlcadR6]

ok, what does the list of lenses look like where the RF is cheaper than the same EF? (Same meaning identical focal length, f-stop, and features such as IS) You found one, are there others?

RF16, replaces EF20/2.8 and EF15/2.8. Two cheap&terrible primes
RF28, replaces EF28/2.8 IS USM. -> No IS USM but superior image quality


And if you goal post of equal f-number is removed. There're....
RF15-30, replaces EF20-35. -> wider, IS equipped that can neglect the slower f-stop
RF100-400, replaces EF70-300 mark 2 -> best entry-level telephoto zoom, looks terrible on spec paper but it's a strong performer on both FF & APS-C bodies.

Only enthusiasts on the internet keep bashing RF because of the "lens selection".

 

[Birdshooter]

And I still don't care...
What is true for you mustn't be true for me. In EF times, I didn't buy Sigmas or Tamrons, but Canon and Zeiss lenses, and do not have any plans to change.
To be honest, if I felt restricted by Canon's lens offer, I'd have switched over to Panasonic or Nikon long time ago instead of complaining. The customer can decide!

40 years with Canon, and I have not heard of these two suppliers... lol

 

[Birdshooter]

CineD mentioned something interesting in their review of the Sigma 28-45mm F1.8 DG DN Art lens. Sigma has already announced that they will launch the following Sigma APS-C lenses for the RF mount – the first three are on my Christmas wish list (Craig if you are listening – ahem). But notably missing were any

See full article...

Why don't people buy Sigma cameras, to go with all the wonderful cheaper lenses.?

In this new world, third parties are only allowed to make lenses that Canon/Nikon are not interested in making. What does this tell us about Canon's interest in the APS-C RF system?

CineD mentioned something interesting in their review of the Sigma 28-45mm F1.8 DG DN Art lens. Sigma has already announced that they will launch the following Sigma APS-C lenses for the RF mount – the first three are on my Christmas wish list (Craig if you are listening – ahem). But notably missing were any

See full article...

I wonder why Sigma only has a full frame 61megapixel camera and no Apc-c camera?
Why are the Sigma lens lovers not all over at Sigma's forum complaining about why they don't have more cameras for their cheap lenses.
Nope, the Sigma fans are here whining about why Canon does not allow this and that from Sigma... hmmmm weird or what.

 

[Askeladden]

There's considerably less of a gap in the (super)telephoto lineup than there was in EF days. There were no Canon lenses over 400mm for less than several thousand pounds/dollars. Now we have the RF 100-400, 600 + 800 f/11, and 200-800; the 100-500 is far cheaper than the EF 500 ever was. There is still perhaps a gap for a midrange prime like the 500 f/5.6 as you indicate, but I can't think it would be much cheaper than the 100-500. For reference, I just checked and the Sigma you mentioned is £2779 versus £2939 for the Canon zoom, hardly night and day (and the latter has had numerous discounts and rebates since its introduction).

Although the 600 and 800 lenses are cool they are still somewhat of a one trick pony.
The 100-500 doesn't accept teleconverters before 300mm etc.. there are lots of limitations is what i am getting at. They had a 400 5.6 albeit without IS which would probably also fit nicely in their current lineup.. The 100-400 MKII is still a very popular lens.. that one could get a refresh as well.. lighter and perhaps the ability to use teleconverters the whole range etc and how about the rf 70-200 not accepting teleconverters? Yeah it is not really comparable in my opinion. It is still lacking.

 

[SNJ Ops]

Really Sony???? If you don't count the used market, Sony is the worst for newbies. On paper, it looks cheap because of the lenses, but the bodies are the worst of the big three. Sub 1200USD bodies are a6700, a7C and a7ii, overpriced APS-C and ageing Full-frames. Combine with terrible software in-camera, forcing the user to do heavy post-processing. That's a recipe for throwing newbies away from photography, they're better off with an flagship smartphone.

If is for a hobby, R50, RP, Nikon Z30 & Z5 with kit lens and the cheapest primes(RF16, RF50, RF28, Z28, Z40) are better off.

And let's be honest, the abundance of E-mount 3rd party lenses, which is the must-have? 35-150? 28-70/2.8? 70-180G2? All those are expensive enough for hobbyists. And the repetitive focal lengths of 35/50/85 primes aren't attractive at all, probably the Yongnuo are good & small enough to consider(ofc that's all due to Sony's cheap primes being so bad&expensive).

Sony’s RAW files don’t need a lot of post processing but they can take a lot if need be.

As for 3rd party lenses that could be considered must have or very desirable there are far too many to list. Just a few are;
Sigma
14mm f1.4 Art
20mm f1.4 Art
24-70mm f2.8 Art DG DN II
500mm f5.6 Sport

Zeiss
Loxia 25mm f2.8
135mm f2.8

Voigtländer
50mm f2 APO-Lanthar
21mm f1.4

Samyang
135mm f1.8

Tamron
17-28mm f2.8
28-75mm f2.8
28-200mm
50-400mm
35-150mm

 

[DhlcadR6]

Sony’s RAW files don’t need a lot of post processing but they can take a lot if need be.

As for 3rd party lenses that could be considered must have or very desirable there are far too many to list. Just a few are;
Sigma
14mm f1.4 Art
20mm f1.4 Art
24-70mm f2.8 Art DG DN II
500mm f5.6 Sport

Zeiss
Loxia 25mm f2.8
135mm f2.8

Voigtländer
50mm f2 APO-Lanthar
21mm f1.4

Samyang
135mm f1.8

Tamron
17-28mm f2.8
28-75mm f2.8
28-200mm
50-400mm
35-150mm

You assume all newbies will have the enthusiasts mindset on lens selections?

Earlier on I was counter arguing someone claims RF is too expensive for starters

 

[scyrene]

Although the 600 and 800 lenses are cool they are still somewhat of a one trick pony.

They have limitations, for sure. But they expand the possibilities compared to EF days, they work well within their niche.

The 100-500 doesn't accept teleconverters before 300mm etc.. there are lots of limitations is what i am getting at. They had a 400 5.6 albeit without IS which would probably also fit nicely in their current lineup.. The 100-400 MKII is still a very popular lens.. that one could get a refresh as well.. lighter and perhaps the ability to use teleconverters the whole range etc and how about the rf 70-200 not accepting teleconverters? Yeah it is not really comparable in my opinion. It is still lacking.

The 100-500 is the successor to the EF 100-400. The teleconverter restriction is certainly potentially annoying (depending on how you use your kit). What are the other "lots" of limitations?

But my general point stands. You have more (first party) options at longer focal lengths now than before RF. There are still gaps in the overall lineup, unsurprising given it's only a few (disrupted) years old. But I think you're just seeing the negatives. As someone who's used long focal lengths in both systems, I feel we've been served surpisingly well so far.

 

[scyrene]

Zeiss
Loxia 25mm f2.8
135mm f2.8

Voigtländer
50mm f2 APO-Lanthar
21mm f1.4

Are these not manual focus? Canon has (so far as we can tell) never restricted the manufacture or sale of third party MF RF lenses. If these aren't made for RF, that's not Canon's doing (aren't these discussions based around the idea Canon is preventing third parties from releasing certain lenses?)

 

[brianb2011]

The strategy is probably to saturate the market with first party options, then when the used market has affordable lenses they will open up to third parties. That is my guess. Can't really blame them for wanting to get their products on the market first because they have made some terrific lenses lately.
I am sure they would lose a lot of money at least in the telephoto segment by opening up the RF mount completely as there are very few options for us mortals. Either we adapt EF glass, accept the extra weight and slightly lower quality or we can buy an expensive 100-500 or a cheap and slow 100-400.
The Sigma 500 5.6 I am sure would eat into the sales of the 100-500 by a considerable margin. For non-telephoto the 50 1.2 would probably outsell the Canon as well.
Either way I am impressed with what Sigma has been able to make lately, It isn't the company it used to be with all sorts of carp in their line-up.

You mention the sigma lens as a desirable lens but say the canon is expensive. The sigma lens costs $100 more than the RF 100-500, and weighs the same. I'm sure some people would choose this sigma lens but I'm guessing the vast majority of canons customers would still choose the flexibility of the zoom at the expense of less than one stop of light.

Scyrene already mentioned that canons telephoto gap is smaller than in the ef days, but I'll take it a step further and say one of the reasons I chose canon as my camera system was because of their telephoto offerings.

Canon has no competitors to their rf 100-400. Sigmas 100-400 is 50% more expensive and double the weight. Sony's is 4 times as expensive and more than double the weight. Maybe those are better quality but they should be, they're in a completely different market segment.

Neither one of them even makes an 800 mm lens as far as I know, much less one for under $1000 and another option for under $2000.

I also like that canon has gone wider on the wide end than other manufacturers. They have a 10-20 and 14-35 where Sony has 12-24 and 16-35. Sigmas widest zoom lens starts at 24.

Not taking anything away from sigma, they've got an impressive lineup, but canon has also been putting out lenses that competitors aren't matching. Great to have choices, and the choices are only increasing as the years go on.

 

[SNJ Ops]

Are these not manual focus? Canon has (so far as we can tell) never restricted the manufacture or sale of third party MF RF lenses. If these aren't made for RF, that's not Canon's doing (aren't these discussions based around the idea Canon is preventing third parties from releasing certain lenses?)

Yes they are but they have electronic contacts to pass on EXIF data and therefore would need to be licensed like Voigtländer’s lenses for the RF mount that have been recently released.

 

[blurryeyedbeast]

Canon has no competitors to their rf 100-400. Sigmas 100-400 is 50% more expensive and double the weight. Sony's is 4 times as expensive and more than double the weight.

Sigma does not yet make an RF native zoom lens for 100-400. I think it is wrong to compare Sigma's EF lens with Canon's RF, rather it should be compared to Canon's EF.

I also like that canon has gone wider on the wide end than other manufacturers. They have a 10-20 and 14-35 where Sony has 12-24 and 16-35. Sigmas widest zoom lens starts at 24.

I would absolutely love to see either Sigma or Tamron do something around 15-16mm at the wide end 35-40 at the narrow end with an f-stop of 4-5.6 with excellent IQ.

Not taking anything away from sigma, they've got an impressive lineup, but canon has also been putting out lenses that competitors aren't matching. Great to have choices, and the choices are only increasing as the years go on.

Canon have strategically put themselves in this position, it isn't because Sigma have been thumbing their nose at RF. It isn't an even race, Canon has given itself a massive headstart.

 

[koenkooi]

Sigma does not yet make an RF native zoom lens for 100-400. I think it is wrong to compare Sigma's EF lens with Canon's RF, rather it should be compared to Canon's EF.[...]

I have an RF camera, why should I limit my choices to EF mount when comparing lenses?

 

[blurryeyedbeast]

I have an RF camera, why should I limit my choices to EF mount when comparing lenses?

Because EF lenses have different requirements than RF, in particular the distance from the last piece of glass to the sensor. This is a very important difference because the shorter distance means smaller lenses can be designed.
Smaller will obviously mean weighs less.

So compare away but be alert to the above when comparing lenses' physical attributes.