Will Sigma ever release the 18-50mm F2.8 zoom for EF-M?

Feigerou wrote:

istscott wrote:

My guess would be no. Let's hope I'm wrong.

It's disappointing because they have all of the technology basically done to make it happen and presumably no legal issues with Canon considering they already have EF-M lenses available. They even have an EF-M dock which I've got and used to update the 56mm lens for the focus ring speed adjustment feature.

The M50ii and M200 are still sold in stores in my area. I see it more than anything else Canon sells. I guess we'll really know what's going to happen if Canon replaces those two models with RF equivalents or not.

Might be worth the effort to email Sigma in your locality and tell them you have interest in the lens for EF-M.

This gets right to what I've been thinking about releasing the Sigma 18-50mm for the M system. I don't think it would take Sigma hardly any resources to do it - they've already figured out everything they need to know about the EF protocols and AF, and have adjusted as needed for the M mount with their 3 f/1.4 primes. I'm probably being naïve here but this is how I imagine any of the 3rd party lens manufacturers making their lenses -

1. The bulk of the lens is produced - call it the front 90% - because this is the same regardless of the mount
2. They manufacture the back 10%, specific to the camera mount. This includes the electrical connections and programming specific to that mount. As noted above they've already put the work in to do this for EF and EF-M
3. Screw #1 to #2
4. Lens done!

I'm sure this is probably too simplistic, and I humbly await correction by someone like nnowak or Marco Nero. If this is the case, it seems pretty simple to launch the 18-50mm in the M mount. Then the question becomes more around hitting a minimum production quantity while not making more than they will actually sell, so that they'd then have to rework them by swapping out the mount. I'm biased, and think there's plenty of demand for M cameras and this lens, and the cameras will be around for years with people still wanting a lens like this. I've seen way too many incredible pictures with a 250d to think that somehow M is instantly irrelevant because Canon's not planning to release new things for it.

I did send an email to Sigma USA asking them to bring this lens to the M system, and also asking if it's eligible for their mount conversion service too. Of course, crickets followed....

From an engineering perspective, yes, you are correct. It would be fairly trivial for the engineers to recreate the 18-50mm with the EF-M mount. Unfortunately, that is where the simplicity ends.

New circuit boards would need to be manufactured, verified, and passed through various regulatory approvals. New injection molds would need to be created for the few parts that are specific to the EF-M version of this lens. Assembly procedures, and any new tooling, would need to be created and validated. Region specific manuals would need to be created. New region specific packaging would need to be designed and manufactured. Subsidiaries would need to get trained on the functions of the new lens as well as all relevant repair procedures. Model specific repair parts would need to be stocked at all subsidiaries and those repair parts would need to be available for several years after the lens would get discontinued in order to comply with regional repair laws. Region specific marketing materials would need to be created. Initial production quantities would need to be large enough to fully stock all regional subsidiaries.

I am sure I am missing several other steps that would be required, but basically, the only significant "reuse" comes at the engineering stage. Given their limited manufacturing capacity, Sigma needs to weigh all of these up front and ongoing costs of a new lens against the potential return. Even if Sigma would sell enough copies to recoup the original investment, it might not be anywhere near as profitable as using those same resources to produce an alternate lens in an alternate mount.

Everything above is just the "numbers" part of the equation. There is also a cultural/emotional component.  A huge part of what made Canon, and the EF mount, so successful was the ubiquitous third party support, especially from Sigma. Canon's recent third party RF shenanigans may come back to haunt them as Canon basically just gave all of those third party manufacturers the middle finger.  Do you build lenses for a company that will potentially threaten you with legal action, or do you build lenses for a company that openly provides you with communication protocols and technical support?  My guess is the former is only a consideration after you have completely saturated the latter.