No wonder Sony did not bother...

Started Feb 12, 2020 | Discussions thread
PWPhotography Forum Pro • Posts: 10,854
Re: No wonder Sony did not bother...

sportyaccordy wrote:

PWPhotography wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

My contention is that they are only working on those lenses for Sony FE. When- and it's definitely a matter of when, not if- they crack the RF/Z protocols, those 1.2 primes will be made for those mounts as well.

But until now E-mount is the most profitable area for Sigma.

Did they say that?

Of course, how long E-mount existed and what Sony ML market share compared to EOS R and Z mounts? No doubt.

If F/1.2 lenses aren't your concern why bring them up?

Just curiosity why you are so raving about if yourself no plan to acquire them any time soon

The same reason you brought up Sigma lenses you have no need for

On your logic. I could easily invest into Sigma fast portrait lenses if that is really important. But instead I invested into fast Voigtlander CV prime lenses as more important to me, and also they can take portrait photos.

But Sigma and Sony will answer the challenge and will deliver those fast f1.2 portrait lenses on E-mount, no doubt about. Sigma just delivers FE 35/1.2 Art and reasonably believe they are working on 50/1.2 and 85/1.2 Art. We all hope they succeed, right?


Sure don't play zero-sum game. We all hope they succeed.

Until then you can get Sigma FE 35/1.2 Art at $1500 and will have discount a few months later. How much for RF 35/1.2L? Oh, only in rumor and guess will be very expensive

Yes, first party lenses cost more than third party versions. This is nothing new. And the RF 35/1.2L is just as imaginary as the Sigma 50/85 1.2 ARTs you brought up. Funny how it's only wrong when someone elsedoes it

Sigma Art lenses are as good as OEM lenses but much cheaper.

You can get Sigma FE 24-70/2.8 at $1100 while EF 24-70L/2.8 IS costs whopping $2300, more than double

Or I can adapt EF mount 2.8 zooms and get full functionality and almost full performance

Nope there is a compromised as you already admitted, more or less. Longer FL, more compromises as nobody shoot Canon long EF lenses on R bodies in sport and wildlife except for testing purposes.

For example right now I have an old Tamron 24-70 G1 for sale on Ebay. I'll be happy to get $400 for it............. but it's every bit as sharp as the Sony GM 2.8 standard

LOL, your expectation is very low. No way.

And with the nice human hand sized grip the extra 100-150 or so grams are no big deal. My R with a 70-200 2.8 is more comfortable than my A7R2 was with lenses half as heavy.

Not my experience. My A9+vertical grip is more comfortable than my 1D III which has the same shape/size/weight as 1Dx II or D5.

so I "believe" it is only a matter of time before all FF MILCs have access to those lenses. Sigma makes glass for EF-M and even made glass for Pentax and Sony A mount for Christ's sakes.... there's no way they are stopping at Sony and L mount.

It's difficult that Canon and Nikon have either authorized Sigma and Tamron to work on RF and Z mount lenses, or Sigma has to take time and effort to reverse-engineer the mount that no guaranteed in future compatibility as happened to EF and F mounts. It will take while for Sigma to port Art lenses to RF and Z mounts.

But at least Sigma offers alternative to OEM lenses, as good as but much cheaper.

It's a challenge but I think they can do it. For RF mount, at the absolute worst they can just launch them with the adapted EF protocol, then update to the full RF protocol later. But think they want to get everything 100% out of the gate.

Lots of wishful thinking. Adapted lenses never an ideal solution but only temporary otherwise never can match native lens AF-C tracking performance including eye-AF.

Maybe in Sony land........................

LOL, you never experience so you don't know. Show me any adapted Canon EF lenses could have such performance? By adapting EF 135L/2.0? 135 GM blows 135L outs of water. I have this setup now, blazing fast. I'd wait to see if 135L adapted on R5 can shoot 20fps in such eye-AF performance?

FE 135 GM @f1.8 wide open sharpness on 61mp A7r IV, hand-held, likely at least as sharp as if not sharper than 135L @f2.8

I've had my R for a few months and have used it with native and adapted glass. There's very little difference in AF performance.

Right, until you shoot sports and wildlife. All reviews said Sony real-time AF-C is quite better than Canon and Nikon ML's AF tracking.

If there are any limitations it's on the lens (i.e. the old FE 50 1.8 style AF motors aren't as fast or quiet). But with 9 new lenses per year, and Canon's consistently high level of optical and manufacturing quality, adapter limitations will soon be a worry of the past,

Heard RF 70-200L has front focus and needs FW update

while Sony FE users looking for a decent 24-xx lens still have to shell out four figures, nearly 7 years into the system. When it comes to lens selection, quantity <> quality

How much for RF 24-70L IS? $2300, cheaper than Sony GM? While now you can get excellent Sigma FE 24-70/2.8 Art at $1100, less than half of Canon RF. But you don't own this RF zoom either, right? So don't understand why you're so excited

All my Sony lenses, Zeiss, Tamron and Voigtlander collected at this moment have excellent optical quality, world class in respective area.

 PWPhotography's gear list:PWPhotography's gear list
Canon EOS-1D Mark III Sony a7R IV Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX DG OS Macro HSM +16 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow