nnowak wrote:
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.
Maybe not. There seams to be some cooperation between Canon and Sigma. Look at the compatibility of Sigma lenses with the new R5 and R6. Zero problems.
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.
-- hide signature --
EF glass = bang for my buck