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

[candyman]

Would the zoom method used on the 17-40L be a good compromise? It moves the front element, inside the hood

How do the 16-35mm f/4 and the 17-40mm f/4 differ in terms of zooming techniques? Isn't that the same? I have the 16-35 and it is optically a nice lens. I suspect optically slightly better than the 17-40. With the adapter the 16-35 is of course quite long and a bit heavy when used with the R8. Although with landscape photography I almost always use the tripod. Also because of the use of the LEE 100 system and filters.

 

[tiggy@mac.com]

I just don't care, the RF lenses are excellent, why should I buy something else?
Yet, I understand some will be disappointed and a few others will cry out loud: Canon is d....d...
No one is forced to accept Canon's decision, there's enough competion around...

I still miss my Sigma 35mm Art f/1.2 from when I was shooting Sony. There are definitely lenses that would be nice to re-buy in RF that don't have equivalents in Canon.

I think it is much, much better to have competition within mount systems, then to have the only competition be between mount systems. We'd all be served much better.

 

[Maximilian]

... the first three are on my Christmas wish list (Craig if you are listening – ahem). ...

I hope for you, Craig is listening.
What else could you use with your R100 ...?

 

[Maximilian]

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

At least the APS-C crowd will get superb alternatives Canon is not willing to deliver.
Thank you, @Sigma

 

[Maximilian]

... I have the 16-35 and it is optically a nice lens. I suspect optically slightly better than the 17-40. ..

The EF 16-35/4 is MUCH better than the 17-40. See TDP.
Maybe not that much in the Center but way ahead in the corners. (at FF)
The good thing about the 17-40 is that it's the ceapest L zoom and quite small.
So for APS-C it is interesting as the corner sharpness isn' that bad.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Sigma offers a 20/1.4. Sigma has the fantastic "i series" lenses, including the superb 65/2.

If Sigma offers a RF mount version of this lens, I'll get it. I liked the EF version very much, but it was too heavy especially with an extra adapter. The new apparently is even better and a lot lighter.

 

[m4ndr4ke]

Well, that's going to disappoint a lot of people, tin-foil hatted or not!

Sigma doing things as they previously said they would is disappointing?

They promised APS-C lenses in 2024, why should we expect anything different?

 

[OldrockyGN]

There isn't. Same as Nikon, Canon is tightly controlling which licensed AF lenses are and are not allowed onto RF mount. They do not want to share sales, so there will not be amazing Sigma lenses like the ART series 14/1.4, 35/1.2, 50/1.2, or 85/1.4. on RF. Nor will there be the great collecton of "i series" lenses loved by many, nor the incredible Sports series 500/5.6 ultra compact super tele prime.

Canon believes this is what is best for their bottom line. Unfortunately people buying into RF get to pay the price.

To me I don't care (very mich) who produces the lenses I will use. Sigma/whoever -vs- Canon ... it's hard to tell the difference. But I'm shooting for "web presence"
and not for largest+highest quality print images. I'm an amateur birding photographer. I want more choices in terms of longer zoom lenses - but weight is also
very important to me because I want to carry the camera+lens and shoot hand held. I have the Canon Rf 100-400mm with the 1.4 extender. It's a nice sized
package and the weight is very useful. I'd -like- a longer zoom that is just as light and just as small physically ... not holding my breath for that. *G*

 

[SNJ Ops]

True, yet I have no intentions of buying any third party lenses anymore, other than the manual lenses. Every time there is a change, I struggle using them. I have both Sigma and Tamron lenses and they are relatively useless with R5 right now. I add an ND filter and they don't focus, while EF lenses are still ok. I can't sell them because I still use my 1DX II.
I know that choice is great, but the pain I have to pay for that choice, my own opinion, is not worth it.
I envy Sony guys having these choices, but then again, I look at my own Sigma lenses and all of a sudden the envy is gone.
Lenses are supposed to last "forever", third party negates that. In my eyes, they are only a temporary solution to Canon shortage.

The difference is on emout Sony grant a license to ensure compatibility. That never happened on EF mount which is why such things as you describe are possible. The APSC lenses that Sigma and Tamron are releasing are licensed by Canon therefore they shouldn’t have any issues. The same would be the case for any FF 3rd party glass that may arrive in the future that is fully licensed.

 

[RobbieHat]

To me this is disappointing. My best wide angles on the R5 are my Sigma ART lenses in EF mount with an adapter. I would live to be able to use the DG DN 14-24. I really don't like Canon's RF wide angle zooms at all. If you like them and want to use them, then good for you, but they don't work well for my uses.

I agree wholeheartedly. Two of my best lenses (especially for astrophotography) are Sigma Art lenses. It has been frustrating watching Canon block Sigma from upgrading those lenses for RF mount as well as Canon continuing to ignore the fast UWA segment of lenses. Nike and Sony have good native options. Sigma filled Canon’s void with their Art offerings. Not any longer.

 

[hazydave]

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?

What this tells us is simple, and a thing widely discussed since Canon went after a few third party lensmakerscwith a stack of patents held by a stack of lawyers: Canon is in complete control of the RF mount with at least credible legal backing.

So they officially released their APS-C version for general, no team of lawyers and/or salespeople coming after new third party APS-C glass. Patents not expecting it get shot down over cameras and glass.

Why? Canon only makes consumer grade lenses for APS-C. So why not supoort the lineup with 3rd party options.

 

[Richard CN]

My thoughts on this...

I'm not sure Canon wants to go down the road of reverse engineering that was done in the EF mount.

We have no idea how many people harassed Canon's support about third party lenses on DSLR's. This was Craig's theory and I've grown to lean towards this is one of the main reasons for all this

I've seen MANY posts/commentary when Canon would release a DSLR and it broke compatibility with a third party lens. who's fault was it? Evil Canon of course. With many theorizing that they did it on purpose.

So it could very well have been a "never again" thing.

It would explain why Canon slapped vendors they could as quickly as they popped up for the RF mount. It could be that Canon wants to control this narrative and not let it go all wild west like the EF mount

The RF mount communication is FAR more complicated than the rather simplistic communication protocol of the EF mount, so there's more opportunity for compatibility to break if Canon doesn't share its internal protocol details.

 

[mxwphoto]

My thoughts on this...

I'm not sure Canon wants to go down the road of reverse engineering that was done in the EF mount.

We have no idea how many people harassed Canon's support about third party lenses on DSLR's. This was Craig's theory and I've grown to lean towards this is one of the main reasons for all this

I've seen MANY posts/commentary when Canon would release a DSLR and it broke compatibility with a third party lens. who's fault was it? Evil Canon of course. With many theorizing that they did it on purpose.

So it could very well have been a "never again" thing.

It would explain why Canon slapped vendors they could as quickly as they popped up for the RF mount. It could be that Canon wants to control this narrative and not let it go all wild west like the EF mount

The RF mount communication is FAR more complicated than the rather simplistic communication protocol of the EF mount, so there's more opportunity for compatibility to break if Canon doesn't share its internal protocol details.

Coordinated IS alone would utilize much more data bandwidth than any EF 8pin, nevermind the focus by wire data, control ring adjustment data, and now aperture adjustment ring data. I used to be pretty cynical of Canon's walled garden approach but on this front I would give them a pass so the quality of end user experience can be maintained.

 

[blurryeyedbeast]

Is anyone going to make affordable lenses for RF or RF-S?

 

[Richard CN]

Coordinated IS alone would utilize much more data bandwidth than any EF 8pin, nevermind the focus by wire data, control ring adjustment data, and now aperture adjustment ring data. I used to be pretty cynical of Canon's walled garden approach but on this front I would give them a pass so the quality of end user experience can be maintained.

exactly the coordinated IS means that the lens MAY directly impact the operations of the camera, as it communicates its positioning on lens IS to the camera body, so it can adjust accordingly with IBIS.

the two work hand in hand, so yeah there's a lot of moving parts.

 

[Richard CN]

Is anyone going to make affordable lenses for RF or RF-S?

did you read the post?

Sigma and Tamron are making RF-S.

also; Canon has affordable RF/RF-S lenses.

 

[Jasonmc89]

Bit of a shame the Sigma 18-50 doesn’t have IS. I’ve been waiting for a standard zoom for my R7 for ages.

The wide angle zoom looks good though!

 

[koenkooi]

did you read the post?

Sigma and Tamron are making RF-S.

also; Canon has affordable RF/RF-S lenses.

‘Affordable’ is a tricky qualifier, since it can genuinely and correctly mean different things to different people.

I find it less contentious to compare it to other lenses, like ‘EF 3rd party’, ‘EF non-L’ and ‘RF non-L’.
For example, the RF24 non-L is very close to the price I paid for the EF100L (€850 vs €900). My feeling is that the RF lenses are much more expensive than the EF lenses I bought over a decade ago. My feelings are of course ignoring inflation

I’m also spoiled by having benefited from the EF-M lens pricing, the 22 and 11-22 were in hindsight very cheap. Cheaper than what Sigma is asking for their RF-S lenses. The Sigma lenses are excellent, so they are not overpriced, but still expensive.
For the people here with an R6II or R5, it would very much be affordable, but for the 20D using me 20 years ago, no.

 

[SwissFrank]

I just don't care, the RF lenses are excellent, why should I buy something else?

I would love a 35/1.0 or 35/1.2, and if the 14mm f/1.4 was available for Canon I'd probably buy one and try to take some astro photos. I've had the EF 35/1.4 and 24/1.4 and found the 35 too normal and 24 too wide, but got the Sigma 28/1.4 and really like the images. But I have to use the 28/1.4 on an adapter. It's my only EF-mount lens, so I leave the adapter on it and it's not inconvenient, but a 28/1.4 designed for mirrorless would be smaller and sharper. Meanwhile I'm pretty sure the 14/1.4 is exclusively for mirrorless and thus available to other camera owners but not Canon owners.

It's not enough to get me to buy a Sony or Nikon body, much enough to get me to switch systems of course. But it is annoying.

I'll agree with you in part: I don't think I'd ever buy a Sigma or say Zeiss 85/1.4 if Canon had an 85/1.4.

 

[blackcoffee17]

‘Affordable’ is a tricky qualifier, since it can genuinely and correctly mean different things to different people.

I find it less contentious to compare it to other lenses, like ‘EF 3rd party’, ‘EF non-L’ and ‘RF non-L’.
For example, the RF24 non-L is very close to the price I paid for the EF100L (€850 vs €900). My feeling is that the RF lenses are much more expensive than the EF lenses I bought over a decade ago. My feelings are of course ignoring inflation

I’m also spoiled by having benefited from the EF-M lens pricing, the 22 and 11-22 were in hindsight very cheap. Cheaper than what Sigma is asking for their RF-S lenses. The Sigma lenses are excellent, so they are not overpriced, but still expensive.
For the people here with an R6II or R5, it would very much be affordable, both for the 20D using me 20 years ago, no.

Yes, some RF lenses are massively overpriced, like the 24 1.8 (it's not even that good) or the 100-500 (this one is at least stellar).
But some lenses are really good value, like the 15-30 (it's £299 on grey market). The 28mm 2.8 is also great value but could be cheaper compared to EF 40 and 24mm (EF-S) lenses.