unhappymeal wrote:
TheDigitalDonbavand wrote:
I like to stick with Canon. Really wish there were a few more native lenses like a 16 1.4.
The Sigma lenses are native,
They are not "native". Just like all other Canon mount Sigma lenses, the mount and communication protocol have been reverse engineered. Sigma may have done a very good job reverse engineering the AF protocols, but they are definitely not "native". A future M system body could easily "break" compatibility with Sigma EF-M lenses and force a firmware update.
The only Sigma lenses with truly "native" protocols are those produced for the open m4/3 and Sony E mounts.
therefore you do have access to a native 16 f/1.4. Just because you refuse to acknowledge third party manufacturers, doesn't mean they don't exist. I prefer to evaluate lenses on their own merit, independent of who manufactures them.
The Tamron EF-M mount 18-200mm lens has required multiple firmware updates to maintain compatibility with newer M bodies. First the M3 broke compatibility, and then the M5/M6 broke it again. I can't remember, but there may have been a third body that broke compatibility.
I don't care of it's Panasonic or Olympus (or someone else) who is manufacturing my lens for m4/3. I have the Viltrox X 85 f/1.8 because it's better than the Fujinon 85 f/2.
Fuji does not have a 85mm f/2, so I guess the Viltrox would be better if you are comparing to a lens that does not exist.
I have a Sigma zoom for my Pentax KP because the Pentax lens (16-50 f/2.8 SDM) is (comparatively) hot garbage. Blind brand allegiance is doing you, the consumer, no favours.
The Pentax 16-50mm f/2.8 is a repackaged Tokina 16-50mm f/2.8. That "hot garbage" is a third party design.