New Sigma 18-50 2.8

Sittatunga wrote:

rz64 wrote:

nnowak wrote:

Photato wrote:

nnowak wrote:

Photato wrote:

dan the man p wrote:

Yaixi wrote:

I think you make a lot of sense. Canon's positioning of m is the same as their video content.

But I want to ask you a question. Why doesn't Sigma not have the Canon version of 1850?

I am very eager for Sigma's 1850, which is obviously 16, 30, and 56, as well as Fuji and Sony. Why can canon come up with one? All M users are waiting for the emergence of such a lens. With the current ownership of the M system, there is enough market. What's more, this lens has come out, and the rest is to change the bayonet. Isn't it profitable to change this big market?

While the set of EOS M users is fairly sizable, the subset that would spend $500+ on a standard zoom lens is probably not very large. Plus no one wants to invest development and production dollars into a system that is clearly being put to pasture by the manufacturer. No new M hardware from the Canon means the user base will continue to dwindle with time, which is not exactly an enticing place for third-party lens makers to invest. Even if they thought they could turn a profit on it, their bandwidth is limited and there are probably more profitable alternatives.

I don't think so.
In fact, I would say that there is a bigger market for a lens like this with the M crowd than in Fuji land.
Fuji X has a gazillion of bright zoom lenses and primes already to compete against.
So I don't get it. Seems like a curse
It also could be that for Auto focus lenses, third party lens makers need permission from Canon or *risk* copyright infringement.

The two systems target very different users. .........

Basically, the M system is predominantly targeted to the beginner/entry level end of the market while the Fuji system primarily caters to the advanced/professional end of the market. The members of this forum buying up M6 II's and f/1.4 primes are the exception and are not really representative of the broader M market which rarely goes beyond the basic two lens kit. The average Fuji user is going to see the Sigma as a compact and relatively low priced alternative to the existing lenses in the lineup. The average M system user probably can not figure out why they would want the Sigma over their smaller 15-45mm or longer range 18-150mm. Again, the members of this forum are not representative of the average M system user.

There is also the small technical detail that this lens is unstabilized and the M system has zero bodies with IBIS while Fuji is now up to 5.

Dude, the B&H catalog has more than 90 EF-M lenses to choose from, the most expensive is almost $2,000.

That would be the manual focus KIPON Ibelux 40mm f/0.85 for $1780 that is available is 7 different mounts, including RF-S. It is also the only lens priced above $600. Most of those "90 EF-M lenses" are manual focus Chinese lenses that are available in every mount imaginable. Not counting color variations, I am only seeing 13 autofocus lenses, with the most expensive being the $499 18-150mm.

Lots of niche and manual focus lenses there though, not exactly what the P&S crowd would buy, lol

Lots of manual focus Chinese primes that are available in every mount imaginable. Find me a manual focus prime on B&H that is only available in EF-M mount.

So why all of the sudden, it makes no business sense for Sigma to bring a sorely missing mainstream, bright standard zoom ?!

It is quite possible the EF-M mount Sigma primes sold below Sigma's expectations. Viltrox also released three autofocus primes in EF-M mount, but has decided against releasing any of their other autofocus lenses in EF-M mount. Samyang is not releasing their autofocus 12mm f/2.0 in EF-M mount. Multiple companies are deciding against releasing new autofocus lenses in EF-M mount.

it is not like they would have to do a lot of R&D. It is literally attaching the repective mount using the same lens formula and they have the electronic know how with their prime trio.

That lens has a market worth pursuing, IMHO.

If you think the process is so simple, why did it take Sigma 13 months from the launch of the Sony version to the launch of the Fuji version?

It is a lot more involved than just slapping a new mount on the lens and changing the firmware. .........

Nnowak, did you ever make a positive comment about the M in comparison with Fuji? Or in comparison with Canon R?

As long as I take part here in this forum (almost 5 years now), you are:
- regularly proclaiming the end of the M,
- spreading a lot of "bad talk" about the M,
- emphasizing the advantages of Fuji or of Canon R.

I thought nnowak's original comments were generally fair and quite positive, apart from missing out one of the sets of users that the M series is ideal for. That's the people who use full-frame Canon cameras and already have a stash of EF lenses, but want something small and fun, to work alongside the main system. I use FF for ambitious stuff, which is why I'm not interested in EF-M f/2.8 zooms, or £400+ EF-M lenses. Nor am I interested in APS-C cameras that aren't significantly smaller than my EOS R.

As a former owner of Fuji 18-55 which wasn't actually all that better than 24-105 stm which I am also former owner of, I definently would like to own a 18-50 f/2.8 but I actually think I gain more by getting those f/2.8 things in RF mount, especially if small RF bodies are forthcoming.