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

[Del Paso]

I assume that canon did not license the full frame lenses to the thirds because the competition to their own STM line would be to great. If you have a choice a prime lense from sigma or a standard lense from canon - both for the same price, how would you choose?
Canon did not want to offer many APS-C lenses. Remember - they don't want to brings aps-c dslm on the market bevor. Canon change this decision later, because the competioner did this. I don't expect taht canon will ever license the ff-lenses to third parties, until they get so much money with their lense lineup. And - this seems to work, if you see the published reports. The finaly stroy is not written because the prime body is not on the market yet. Canon will get the leadership of the market and do all to get this.
Let's assume that the R1 comes onto the market with features that no other camera has yet implemented, and that they are so good that it would be worth changing brands. This would certainly be a good basis for selling more prime lenses and bodies. Why should a company should share the market with cheaper thirds?
For my opinion, the R5 is the last Canon body. The price policy of the brand is getting to be to expensive for just doing a hobby. If the R5 gets retired, i will take a look what's available on the market. I actually recomment Sony for newbies.

The R5 the last Canon body?
Recommending soni to newbies?
A bit unhinged, isn't it?

 

[chrysoberyl]

I hope that Canon will allow 3rd parties to release RF (or EF!) versions of existing Sigma lenses where Canon has no plans to release their own lens.
Even manual focus would be fine for the astrolandscape lovers eg 14/1.4

Pure fantasy, but think how sharp Sigma astro lenses would be if they had no IBIS and no AF elements.

 

[John Wilde]

For my opinion, the R5 is the last Canon body. The price policy of the brand is getting to be to expensive for just doing a hobby. If the R5 gets retired, i will take a look what's available on the market.

Canon offers cameras in all price ranges, and will continue to do so. The below is from Canon's strategy document.

Click on graphic to view.

 

[Del Paso]

Canon offers cameras in all price ranges, and will continue to do so. The below is from Canon's strategy document.

Click on graphic to view.

Interesting graphic!
Nonetheless, you won't succeed in convincing all the self-declared canondooming Nostradamus disciples...
But it's true, the R 5 is dead. Long live the R 5II.

 

[blurryeyedbeast]

Erm... the RF 50 f/1.8 and 35 f/1.8 are right there?

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.

 

[blurryeyedbeast]

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.

Where are any of the 70-300m zooms???

 

[blurryeyedbeast]

You can lead a troll to facts, but you can’t make him comprehend them.

I was taught that if I don't have something nice to say then I shouldn't say it. Your post is totally unnecessary except to inflame. Others in this thread have responded with correct information and my thanks goes to them.

 

[candyman]

Click on graphic to view.

Personally, I think Canon uses a bit too simple graphic here. It is an obvious graphic. It is clear that the blue part contains the APS-c products and the green part contains the FF products. But the R100 is on the same left side as the R5. Horizontal positioning means nothing here. I think they could have shown a little more here. Maybe in a different graphic. Perhaps a missed opportunity. Although I haven't seen any other diagrams.

 

[DhlcadR6]

The price policy of the brand is getting to be to expensive for just doing a hobby. If the R5 gets retired, i will take a look what's available on the market. I actually recomment Sony for newbies.

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).

 

[ashmadux]

Interesting graphic!
Nonetheless, you won't succeed in convincing all the self-declared canondooming Nostradamus disciples...
But it's true, the R 5 is dead. Long live the R 5I

Look, it's just downright weird to think/feel/assume that canon customers that would like more choices are ALSO prophesying the DOOM DOOM DOOM of canon. It's just extremely silly. Check this out- we can be annoyed with canon and still adore their R5. Is that a mentally challenging concept? Really?

Like...cmon, calm down, touch some grass.

Many canon users have left for other pastures. Sony is doing this right...no problems of choice there. Where's the e-mount criticism of choices? Is it 'bad' for them? Of course not. Many wanted to stay...but options are great. Options arent great for thos with severe tunnel vision, or the more simple-minded amongst us that the word "choice" confuses and confounds them. How sad. It is what it is, canon will do what they do. As consumers, your choice is to disersify, or leabve the platform in response.

My personal opinion is that the RF line, with choices being very expensive, or cheap and 'fine', is just not enough. It would be if sigma and tamron wasn't out here showing consumers that we could have more. Sigma is 'saving' the rf-s line, unfortunately for dubious canon reasons - but it is what it is, rf-s users will have more choices. Yet FF users have waited years and years for a updated 50 1.4..that doesn't cost 1400.00$ like the latest 35.

That's 'bad'?

Let's see the hypocrisy - if there there was a chance for the tamron 35-150 would be on canon, be real, that would be 'bad'? Because YOU have what you need already?..cmon. The silliness in this thread is just sad.

If you can look at canon's overall lineup of only cheap and expensive and be impressed, well..bless your heart. You're certainly something special*. And canon loves you and appreciates you. You're so wonderful.

PS- R5 rocks, but this r6ii is being traded for a S5ii..more options the better. Shhhh. That panny 50 1.8 smokes the measly nifty thrifty 50. Just between you and me. Shhhh.Oh, and I still use M62 and m50. With a sigma 30 1.4. Choices rock. SHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

 

[neuroanatomist]

Where are any of the 70-300m zooms???

That’s now the RF 100-400, often available for $500.

 

[Del Paso]

Look, it's just downright weird to think/feel/assume that canon customers that would like more choices are ALSO prophesying the DOOM DOOM DOOM of canon. It's just extremely silly. Check this out- we can be annoyed with canon and still adore their R5. Is that a mentally challenging concept? Really?

Like...cmon, calm down, touch some grass.

Many canon users have left for other pastures. Sony is doing this right...no problems of choice there. Where's the e-mount criticism of choices? Is it 'bad' for them? Of course not. Many wanted to stay...but options are great. Options arent great for thos with severe tunnel vision, or the more simple-minded amongst us that the word "choice" confuses and confounds them. How sad. It is what it is, canon will do what they do. As consumers, your choice is to disersify, or leabve the platform in response.

My personal opinion is that the RF line, with choices being very expensive, or cheap and 'fine', is just not enough. It would be if sigma and tamron wasn't out here showing consumers that we could have more. Sigma is 'saving' the rf-s line, unfortunately for dubious canon reasons - but it is what it is, rf-s users will have more choices. Yet FF users have waited years and years for a updated 50 1.4..that doesn't cost 1400.00$ like the latest 35.

That's 'bad'?

Let's see the hypocrisy - if there there was a chance for the tamron 35-150 would be on canon, be real, that would be 'bad'? Because YOU have what you need already?..cmon. The silliness in this thread is just sad.

If you can look at canon's overall lineup of only cheap and expensive and be impressed, well..bless your heart. You're certainly something special*. And canon loves you and appreciates you. You're so wonderful.

PS- R5 rocks, but this r6ii is being traded for a S5ii..more options the better. Shhhh. That panny 50 1.8 smokes the measly nifty thrifty 50. Just between you and me. Shhhh.Oh, and I still use M62 and m50. With a sigma 30 1.4. Choices rock. SHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

My goodness, you are sooo funny. The Panasonic/Sony/Tamron/Sigma forums will love your wonderful sense of humor!
PS: you should learn reading my posts, if it isn't intellectually too challenging...
I wrote that I didn't care about Sigma not (yet) offering RF/FF lenses, NOT that everybody should share MY opinion...

 

[neuroanatomist]

I was taught that if I don't have something nice to say then I shouldn't say it. Your post is totally unnecessary except to inflame. Others in this thread have responded with correct information and my thanks goes to them.

I was taught that if you don’t have something true to say, you shouldn’t tell a lie.

Where is the 50/1.8 or 35/2? These old, cheap EF lens that produce fantastic images for under $200 still have no RF equivalent

The RF 50/1.8 lists for $199 and has been available for $150 or less from Canon and authorized dealers.

‘Fantastic images’? Well, as far as artistic content even a pinhole lens (costing a few cents made from aluminum foil with a pinhole in it taped over the bare mount) can do that. But as far as technical image quality, the old EF 50/1.8 and 35/2 (from 1990) fall very far short of fantastic.

Enjoy your Yongnuo lenses.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Look, it's just downright weird to think/feel/assume that canon customers that would like more choices are ALSO prophesying the DOOM DOOM DOOM of canon. It's just extremely silly. Check this out- we can be annoyed with canon and still adore their R5. Is that a mentally challenging concept? Really?

Seriously? You need a memory check. There were dozens of posts on this forum about how Canon would suffer negative consequences for locking out 3rd party AF lenses. You’re correct that they were silly, though. Must feel good to be right about something.

 

[blurryeyedbeast]

I was taught that if you don’t have something true to say, you shouldn’t tell a lie.

So was I, good huh? It is possible to be wrong about things simply because of ignorance (in this case) or forgetfulness, in addition to knowingly making misrepresentations.

Are you saying you were taught it was ok to insult people? Interesting teaching! Tell me more about these teachings of yours that say it is ok to insult people.

Btw, as *someone else* pointed out, I was wrong about the 50/1.8 not existing for RF.

The RF 50/1.8 lists for $199 and has been available for $150 or less from Canon and authorized dealers.

Well just have to wait for sales. But $150 is still more than all of the EF versions.

But as far as technical image quality, the old EF 50/1.8 and 35/2 (from 1990) fall very far short of fantastic.

Both make great pictures for Internet. I used to pixel peep and then realised nobody looks at pics zoomed in 100% and then stopped worrying. Well that depends on how you define "looks at" but if I take picture of statue of liberty, I want to look at the whole thing. I don't have 45MP screen.

 

[David - Sydney]

Pure fantasy, but think how sharp Sigma astro lenses would be if they had no IBIS and no AF elements.

I have a dream (gazing off into the cosmos)....

 

[David - Sydney]

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.

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.

 

[David - Sydney]

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

But it is strange to me that Sigma/Tamron haven't released any new EF mount lenses since R mount was released. They had no issues in the past selling them and it would mostly avoid criticism for 3rd parties on full frame R mount. The only thing I can think of is that Canon promised to license the RF protocol if they would behave but it has been 5 years already and no Sigma/Tamron actually on sale yet (let me know if there is anything besides announcements yet for RF-S).

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.

For me, the simple way to avoid reverse engineering of the protocol is to encrypt it. Whether they have or have not done it, the end result is the same though.

The weird part is that (excluding the mostly Chinese manufacturers) that R mount lenses haven't been released using the EF protocol. Better for mechanical stability without the adaptor for the longer focal lengths or using the newer lens designs where the adaptor spacer distance is not needed.

 

[David - Sydney]

Personally, I find it disappointing that the RF14-35 f/4 is not an internal zoom lens. This focal length (in my case EF16-35 f/4) is used by me for urban photography and certainly also landscape photography. Weather conditions also apply to landscape photography. Then you actually want maximum protection against weather influences. An internal zoom is better than external zooming in and out of the 14-35. That is why I did not purchase this lens and will stick with the EF 16-35 f/4 for the time being. For me, the current wide angle DSLR Sigma lenses are either too heavy (bulky), not the right focal length. I'm hoping for an RF14-35 II with internal zoom. That will take some years. Perhaps Sigma released an internal zoom Canon FF mirrorless wide-angle lens before then. Then that is of course worth testing.

Uncle Roger did a great teardown of the RF70-200/2.8 which I expect the RF14-35mm/4 to have a similar design.
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/20...ed-teardown-of-the-canon-rf-70-200mm-f2-8-is/
From a dust perspective
"Before we start, though, let’s get the extending barrel discussion out of the way. Some of you HATE extending barrel lenses. That’s cool; don’t get one. Some of you like to call them dust pumps. That’s cool, too, although it’s incorrect. (We take care of over 20,000 lenses. The most common ‘dusters’ among current lenses all happen to be primes that don’t zoom at all.)"... "There are a lot of nice touches, like the air filter tape over the openings around the front group. Will it prevent the lens from getting dust inside? Of course not; every lens gets dust inside. But it’s helpful and shows they’re trying"

There is no independent water ingress testing and clearly Canon isn't putting a IP rating but dust ingress gives a pretty good indication of weather resistance. Roger compares the design to the EF70-200/2.8 being an internally zoom lens for instance. I have no issues with getting an external zoom lens as I don't perceive that they have poorer weather resistance.

There are dedicated covers (even a plastic bag) to increase weather protection if that is really important to you but....
if you - to use your words - "actually want maximum protection against weather influences" then can I introduce you to the Ikelite underwater setup I use which will go down to 60m under water
It covers my EF8-15/4, 16-35 and 100mm macro (different front port).

 

[scyrene]

Pure fantasy, but think how sharp Sigma astro lenses would be if they had no IBIS and no AF elements.

Third parties can already release RF lenses without autofocus.