Sigma RF-S lenses

Hi all,

Damien Bernal has just released a first review of the new Sigma RF-S 18-50 2.8. The review is in French.


It is not a full review yet, but he makes some interesting observations: according to him, unlike Sony, Canon seems to impose no restriction on the lens capabilities. Frame rate, auto focus, stabilization, handling, lens correction, everything works just like a native Canon RF-S lens.

FWIW.

Henri.

A bit sad that focusing during zoom does not work. No clue if this is due to the lens or Canon. Would have to look up reviews for other mounts to be sure, maybe someone knows.

Henri P said:

Hi all,

Damien Bernal has just released a first review of the new Sigma RF-S 18-50 2.8. The review is in French.

It is not a full review yet, but he makes some interesting observations: according to him, unlike Sony,

Click to expand...

Sony has restrictions for frame rate, but that's it, right?

Henri P said:

Canon seems to impose no restriction on the lens capabilities. Frame rate, auto focus, stabilization, handling,

Click to expand...

I didn't worry about those functions so much.

Henri P said:

lens correction,

Click to expand...

lens corrections >> nice

Henri P said:

everything works just like a native Canon RF-S lens.

FWIW.

Henri.

Click to expand...

YouTube has reviews of the lens by Christopher Frost, Gordon Laing and Jared Polin in varying English accents.

May be useful for those of us less fluent in French

Klaus dk said:

YouTube has reviews of the lens by Christopher Frost, Gordon Laing and Jared Polin in varying English accents.

Click to expand...

I can just about understand Jared Polin, if I concentrate.

Klaus dk said:

May be useful for those of us less fluent in French

Click to expand...

thunder storm said:

Henri P said:

Hi all,

Damien Bernal has just released a first review of the new Sigma RF-S 18-50 2.8. The review is in French.

It is not a full review yet, but he makes some interesting observations: according to him, unlike Sony,

Click to expand...

Sony has restrictions for frame rate, but that's it, right?

Click to expand...

Damien also says that on Sony for the last frames of a burst are OOF. Whether it is imposed by Sony or a technical limitation, I don't know.

The point is that with Canon, the lens works as expected. That is what matters here. There have been concerns of Canon being reluctant to support third party lenses, this does not seem to be the case now. We can expect a bunch of fine lenses from Sigma, Tamron, and maybe a few others.

thunder storm said:

thunder storm said:

Canon seems to impose no restriction on the lens capabilities. Frame rate, auto focus, stabilization, handling,

Click to expand...

I didn't worry about those functions so much.

thunder storm said:

lens correction,

Click to expand...

lens corrections >> nice

thunder storm said:

everything works just like a native Canon RF-S lens.

FWIW.

Henri.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Klaus dk said:

YouTube has reviews of the lens by Christopher Frost, Gordon Laing and Jared Polin in varying English accents.

May be useful for those of us less fluent in French

Click to expand...

I'll check these. Their English is good enough for me

Klaus dk said:

... Christopher Frost, Gordon Laing and Jared Polin in varying English accents.

Click to expand...

I have one on pre-order so I'll be able to add my less-qualified comments soon. Sigma has published a launch date of July 11, but when I enquired at the end of last week my supplier here in the UK didn't have a delivery date as yet.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/stevebalcombe/ or
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/stevebalcombe/popular-interesting/

Henri P said:

Klaus dk said:

YouTube has reviews of the lens by Christopher Frost, Gordon Laing and Jared Polin in varying English accents.

May be useful for those of us less fluent in French

Click to expand...

I'll check these. Their English is good enough for me

Click to expand...

i think they complement this one quite nicely, although I would question of Polin really is speaking English....

Those are full reviews of the lens, but don't really cover the aspects this one does in any detail.

I think we can actually see one of the benefits to consumers of Canon's approach to opening up the RF mount - had Sigma reverse engineered the protocols, as normal, it's unlikely that this lens would have had as many capabilities in the areas covered by this review. Paying a licensing fee has clearly given them much fuller access to the protocols, resulting in a less compromised lens. I've always considered the issue of third party lens availability on RF mount more a reaction on Canon's part to the dreadful behaviour of third party lens producers than anything else, and I think it's right that they not be allowed to rip off Canon's IP and also customers, with frankly substandard product in terms of incomplete communication protocols.

Rock and Rollei said:

Henri P said:

Klaus dk said:

YouTube has reviews of the lens by Christopher Frost, Gordon Laing and Jared Polin in varying English accents.

May be useful for those of us less fluent in French

Click to expand...

I'll check these. Their English is good enough for me

Click to expand...

i think they complement this one quite nicely, although I would question of Polin really is speaking English....

Click to expand...

You know what they say: UK and US are separated by the Atlantic Ocean and a common language. Nonetheless, Polin speaks in a way that is quite understandable to my ears, me being a non native English speaker. Never mind the accent, the effort to speak clearly matters most for me.

Rock and Rollei said:

Those are full reviews of the lens, but don't really cover the aspects this one does in any detail.

Click to expand...

Correct. Damien covers the quality of the implementation of the RF protocol by Sigma. Which for me is quite important. I will probably buy the RF-S 23 when it is available.

Rock and Rollei said:

I think we can actually see one of the benefits to consumers of Canon's approach to opening up the RF mount - had Sigma reverse engineered the protocols, as normal, it's unlikely that this lens would have had as many capabilities in the areas covered by this review. Paying a licensing fee has clearly given them much fuller access to the protocols, resulting in a less compromised lens. I've always considered the issue of third party lens availability on RF mount more a reaction on Canon's part to the dreadful behaviour of third party lens producers than anything else, and I think it's right that they not be allowed to rip off Canon's IP and also customers, with frankly substandard product in terms of incomplete communication protocols.

Click to expand...

I agree. It took time to get 3rd party RF lenses, but now we understand why. Like Damien, I hope that after these first RF-S lenses, we will have full frame RF lenses from Sigma, hopefully next year. My theory is that Canon first wanted to check how well Sigma could implement the protocol on a segment of the market, before allowing them to produce more lenses. Of course I can be wrong here.

Yet I was shocked to hear that Sony throttled down the capacities of lenses from Sigma (slower frame rate, longer minimum focusing distance, bad focus accuracy during bursts, ...). We are not talking about poor reverse engineering here, some of these restrictions are deliberate. This will hurt them back in the long term, since the same lenses work flawlessly on Canon (and hopefully Nikon too). It tells a lot about Sony's policies with regard to their own customers.

Also, considering the price of the 18-50 2.8, the royalties paid to Canon seem to be rather low. The lens is around 9€ more expensive for Canon than for Sony, sales tax included. That's about 7.5 € tax excluded, at the retail level, so it must be just 2 to 4 euros (or pounds or dollars) for Canon. Unless Sony also wants royalties...

FWIW a Reddit user from India seems to have one in their possession - somehow they convinced the distributor to give them one in advance of the official release date. So, there is at least some evidence that physical units are 'out there' to some degree. So, hopefully we should see shipments on or soon after the 11th.

Henri P said:

Rock and Rollei said:

Henri P said:

Klaus dk said:

YouTube has reviews of the lens by Christopher Frost, Gordon Laing and Jared Polin in varying English accents.

May be useful for those of us less fluent in French

Click to expand...

I'll check these. Their English is good enough for me

Click to expand...

i think they complement this one quite nicely, although I would question of Polin really is speaking English....

Click to expand...

You know what they say: UK and US are separated by the Atlantic Ocean and a common language. Nonetheless, Polin speaks in a way that is quite understandable to my ears, me being a non native English speaker. Never mind the accent, the effort to speak clearly matters most for me.

Henri P said:

Those are full reviews of the lens, but don't really cover the aspects this one does in any detail.

Click to expand...

Correct. Damien covers the quality of the implementation of the RF protocol by Sigma. Which for me is quite important. I will probably buy the RF-S 23 when it is available.

Henri P said:

I think we can actually see one of the benefits to consumers of Canon's approach to opening up the RF mount - had Sigma reverse engineered the protocols, as normal, it's unlikely that this lens would have had as many capabilities in the areas covered by this review. Paying a licensing fee has clearly given them much fuller access to the protocols, resulting in a less compromised lens. I've always considered the issue of third party lens availability on RF mount more a reaction on Canon's part to the dreadful behaviour of third party lens producers than anything else, and I think it's right that they not be allowed to rip off Canon's IP and also customers, with frankly substandard product in terms of incomplete communication protocols.

Click to expand...

I agree. It took time to get 3rd party RF lenses, but now we understand why. Like Damien, I hope that after these first RF-S lenses, we will have full frame RF lenses from Sigma, hopefully next year. My theory is that Canon first wanted to check how well Sigma could implement the protocol on a segment of the market, before allowing them to produce more lenses. Of course I can be wrong here.

Yet I was shocked to hear that Sony throttled down the capacities of lenses from Sigma (slower frame rate,

Click to expand...

Slower, true, but that's not exactly the same as slow, and for most applications it won't matter. Personally I don't use burst modes a lot, and when I do 10 fps is enough.

Henri P said:

longer minimum focusing distance,

Click to expand...

Do you have examples?

Henri P said:

bad focus accuracy during bursts,

Click to expand...

Do you have examples?

Henri P said:

...). We are not talking about poor reverse engineering here, some of these restrictions are deliberate.

Click to expand...

the slower frame rate is a mild restriction, but I agree it's deliberate. Not sure about the other ones.

Henri P said:

This will hurt them back in the long term, since the same lenses work flawlessly on Canon (and hopefully Nikon too).

Click to expand...

The Tamron 35-150mm f/2.0-2.8 works better on Sony compared to Nikon, other than frame rate no deliberate restrictions from Sony here.

Henri P said:

It tells a lot about Sony's policies with regard to their own customers.

Also, considering the price of the 18-50 2.8, the royalties paid to Canon seem to be rather low. The lens is around 9€ more expensive for Canon than for Sony, sales tax included. That's about 7.5 € tax excluded, at the retail level, so it must be just 2 to 4 euros (or pounds or dollars) for Canon. Unless Sony also wants royalties...

Click to expand...

Canon needs Sigma to come up with an f/2.8 crop standard zoom. Sony doesn't, as Sony designed one themselves, whereas Canon didn't even bother to bring out their own one.

The Nikon version of the Tamron 35-150mm f/2.0-2.8 is 50 euro more expensive than the Sony version, so for more serious lenses those fees can become more substantial.

Henri P said:

Hi all,

Damien Bernal has just released a first review of the new Sigma RF-S 18-50 2.8. The review is in French.

It is not a full review yet, but he makes some interesting observations: according to him, unlike Sony, Canon seems to impose no restriction on the lens capabilities. Frame rate, auto focus, stabilization, handling, lens correction, everything works just like a native Canon RF-S lens.

FWIW.

Henri.

Click to expand...

I've been curious about this lens, but This review by C. Frost does not look good.

thunder storm said:

Henri P said:

Rock and Rollei said:

Henri P said:

Klaus dk said:

YouTube has reviews of the lens by Christopher Frost, Gordon Laing and Jared Polin in varying English accents.

May be useful for those of us less fluent in French

Click to expand...

I'll check these. Their English is good enough for me

Click to expand...

i think they complement this one quite nicely, although I would question of Polin really is speaking English....

Click to expand...

You know what they say: UK and US are separated by the Atlantic Ocean and a common language. Nonetheless, Polin speaks in a way that is quite understandable to my ears, me being a non native English speaker. Never mind the accent, the effort to speak clearly matters most for me.

thunder storm said:

Those are full reviews of the lens, but don't really cover the aspects this one does in any detail.

Click to expand...

Correct. Damien covers the quality of the implementation of the RF protocol by Sigma. Which for me is quite important. I will probably buy the RF-S 23 when it is available.

thunder storm said:

I think we can actually see one of the benefits to consumers of Canon's approach to opening up the RF mount - had Sigma reverse engineered the protocols, as normal, it's unlikely that this lens would have had as many capabilities in the areas covered by this review. Paying a licensing fee has clearly given them much fuller access to the protocols, resulting in a less compromised lens. I've always considered the issue of third party lens availability on RF mount more a reaction on Canon's part to the dreadful behaviour of third party lens producers than anything else, and I think it's right that they not be allowed to rip off Canon's IP and also customers, with frankly substandard product in terms of incomplete communication protocols.

Click to expand...

I agree. It took time to get 3rd party RF lenses, but now we understand why. Like Damien, I hope that after these first RF-S lenses, we will have full frame RF lenses from Sigma, hopefully next year. My theory is that Canon first wanted to check how well Sigma could implement the protocol on a segment of the market, before allowing them to produce more lenses. Of course I can be wrong here.

Yet I was shocked to hear that Sony throttled down the capacities of lenses from Sigma (slower frame rate,

Click to expand...

Slower, true, but that's not exactly the same as slow, and for most applications it won't matter. Personally I don't use burst modes a lot, and when I do 10 fps is enough.

Click to expand...

I do not go above 15 FPS myself, but this is not the point. The same lens on the R7 does 30 FPS. Damien Bernal mounted it on the R6 II and checked it at 40 FPS without any problem. Some photographers need this.

thunder storm said:

thunder storm said:

longer minimum focusing distance,

Click to expand...

Do you have examples?

Click to expand...

My bad. I should have made it clearer that I am reporting what Damien Bernal says (in French). I regard him as a reliable and competent reviewer. I do not have the lens, nor intend to buy it.

thunder storm said:

thunder storm said:

bad focus accuracy during bursts,

Click to expand...

Do you have examples?

Click to expand...

Same answer as above.

thunder storm said:

thunder storm said:

...). We are not talking about poor reverse engineering here, some of these restrictions are deliberate.

Click to expand...

the slower frame rate is a mild restriction, but I agree it's deliberate. Not sure about the other ones.

thunder storm said:

This will hurt them back in the long term, since the same lenses work flawlessly on Canon (and hopefully Nikon too).

Click to expand...

The Tamron 35-150mm f/2.0-2.8 works better on Sony compared to Nikon, other than frame rate no deliberate restrictions from Sony here.

thunder storm said:

It tells a lot about Sony's policies with regard to their own customers.

Also, considering the price of the 18-50 2.8, the royalties paid to Canon seem to be rather low. The lens is around 9€ more expensive for Canon than for Sony, sales tax included. That's about 7.5 € tax excluded, at the retail level, so it must be just 2 to 4 euros (or pounds or dollars) for Canon. Unless Sony also wants royalties...

Click to expand...

Canon needs Sigma to come up with an f/2.8 crop standard zoom. Sony doesn't, as Sony designed one themselves, whereas Canon didn't even bother to bring out their own one.

Click to expand...

Canon had a EF-S 17-55 2.8, so I do not agree they *need* Sigma for this.

thunder storm said:

The Nikon version of the Tamron 35-150mm f/2.0-2.8 is 50 euro more expensive than the Sony version, so for more serious lenses those fees can become more substantial.

Click to expand...

Maybe it is a percentage, that would make sense. But it seems to be rather low, around 1.6 % for this lens (9€/560€). And maybe less considering Sigma's own extra R&D costs.

dmanthree said:

Henri P said:

Hi all,

Damien Bernal has just released a first review of the new Sigma RF-S 18-50 2.8. The review is in French.

It is not a full review yet, but he makes some interesting observations: according to him, unlike Sony, Canon seems to impose no restriction on the lens capabilities. Frame rate, auto focus, stabilization, handling, lens correction, everything works just like a native Canon RF-S lens.

FWIW.

Henri.

Click to expand...

I've been curious about this lens, but This review by C. Frost does not look good.

Click to expand...

He is a bit lacking in enthusiasm, but Gordon Laing seems to like it. I like that Gordon compares it with the Canon kit lens, which it whips soundly, putting the performance into perspective.

I think it's a bit much to expect an affordable f/2.8 zoom to be super sharp in the corners wide open, and it's only at the wide end where this is an issue anyway. How often do you take f/2.8 shots at 28 mm equivalent, where the corners are in focus and need to be sharp?

I have an EF-mount Sigma 40 mm f/1.4 Art, which takes image quality to the logical extreme - but I will use the new 18-50 much, much more.

dmanthree said:

Henri P said:

Hi all,

Damien Bernal has just released a first review of the new Sigma RF-S 18-50 2.8. The review is in French.

It is not a full review yet, but he makes some interesting observations: according to him, unlike Sony, Canon seems to impose no restriction on the lens capabilities. Frame rate, auto focus, stabilization, handling, lens correction, everything works just like a native Canon RF-S lens.

FWIW.

Henri.

Click to expand...

I've been curious about this lens, but This review by C. Frost does not look good.

Click to expand...

Indeed, it doesn't seem to be the greatest lens Sigma has made, IQ wise. Still, it is cheap for a 2.8 zoom. It might work better on a lower res camera than on the R7.

But this is not the point, the point is that the integration of the RF protocol by Sigma is excellent and promising for the lenses to come.

Henri P said:

thunder storm said:

Henri P said:

Rock and Rollei said:

Henri P said:

Klaus dk said:

YouTube has reviews of the lens by Christopher Frost, Gordon Laing and Jared Polin in varying English accents.

May be useful for those of us less fluent in French

Click to expand...

I'll check these. Their English is good enough for me

Click to expand...

i think they complement this one quite nicely, although I would question of Polin really is speaking English....

Click to expand...

You know what they say: UK and US are separated by the Atlantic Ocean and a common language. Nonetheless, Polin speaks in a way that is quite understandable to my ears, me being a non native English speaker. Never mind the accent, the effort to speak clearly matters most for me.

Henri P said:

Those are full reviews of the lens, but don't really cover the aspects this one does in any detail.

Click to expand...

Correct. Damien covers the quality of the implementation of the RF protocol by Sigma. Which for me is quite important. I will probably buy the RF-S 23 when it is available.

Henri P said:

I think we can actually see one of the benefits to consumers of Canon's approach to opening up the RF mount - had Sigma reverse engineered the protocols, as normal, it's unlikely that this lens would have had as many capabilities in the areas covered by this review. Paying a licensing fee has clearly given them much fuller access to the protocols, resulting in a less compromised lens. I've always considered the issue of third party lens availability on RF mount more a reaction on Canon's part to the dreadful behaviour of third party lens producers than anything else, and I think it's right that they not be allowed to rip off Canon's IP and also customers, with frankly substandard product in terms of incomplete communication protocols.

Click to expand...

I agree. It took time to get 3rd party RF lenses, but now we understand why. Like Damien, I hope that after these first RF-S lenses, we will have full frame RF lenses from Sigma, hopefully next year. My theory is that Canon first wanted to check how well Sigma could implement the protocol on a segment of the market, before allowing them to produce more lenses. Of course I can be wrong here.

Yet I was shocked to hear that Sony throttled down the capacities of lenses from Sigma (slower frame rate,

Click to expand...

Slower, true, but that's not exactly the same as slow, and for most applications it won't matter. Personally I don't use burst modes a lot, and when I do 10 fps is enough.

Click to expand...

I do not go above 15 FPS myself, but this is not the point. The same lens on the R7 does 30 FPS. Damien Bernal mounted it on the R6 II and checked it at 40 FPS without any problem. Some photographers need this.

Click to expand...

Fair enough.

Henri P said:

Henri P said:

Henri P said:

longer minimum focusing distance,

Click to expand...

Do you have examples?

Click to expand...

My bad. I should have made it clearer that I am reporting what Damien Bernal says (in French). I regard him as a reliable and competent reviewer. I do not have the lens, nor intend to buy it.

Click to expand...

O.k., I'll watch it.

Henri P said:

Henri P said:

Henri P said:

bad focus accuracy during bursts,

Click to expand...

Do you have examples?

Click to expand...

Same answer as above.

Henri P said:

Henri P said:

...). We are not talking about poor reverse engineering here, some of these restrictions are deliberate.

Click to expand...

the slower frame rate is a mild restriction, but I agree it's deliberate. Not sure about the other ones.

Henri P said:

This will hurt them back in the long term, since the same lenses work flawlessly on Canon (and hopefully Nikon too).

Click to expand...

The Tamron 35-150mm f/2.0-2.8 works better on Sony compared to Nikon, other than frame rate no deliberate restrictions from Sony here.

Henri P said:

It tells a lot about Sony's policies with regard to their own customers.

Also, considering the price of the 18-50 2.8, the royalties paid to Canon seem to be rather low. The lens is around 9€ more expensive for Canon than for Sony, sales tax included. That's about 7.5 € tax excluded, at the retail level, so it must be just 2 to 4 euros (or pounds or dollars) for Canon. Unless Sony also wants royalties...

Click to expand...

Canon needs Sigma to come up with an f/2.8 crop standard zoom. Sony doesn't, as Sony designed one themselves, whereas Canon didn't even bother to bring out their own one.

Click to expand...

Canon had a EF-S 17-55 2.8, so I do not agree they *need* Sigma for this.

Click to expand...

Let's disagree. I think that's an outdated lens. Not sharp wide open, bulky on the adapter. Look, I don't care about shooting a Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 Art adapted to my M6mkII, but that's not for everyone.

Henri P said:

Henri P said:

The Nikon version of the Tamron 35-150mm f/2.0-2.8 is 50 euro more expensive than the Sony version, so for more serious lenses those fees can become more substantial.

Click to expand...

Maybe it is a percentage, that would make sense.

Click to expand...

Yes, makes sense idd.

Henri P said:

But it seems to be rather low, around 1.6 % for this lens (9€/560€). And maybe less considering Sigma's own extra R&D costs.

Click to expand...

2.8% for my example which is still not that bad.

Henri P said:

dmanthree said:

Henri P said:

Hi all,

Damien Bernal has just released a first review of the new Sigma RF-S 18-50 2.8. The review is in French.

It is not a full review yet, but he makes some interesting observations: according to him, unlike Sony, Canon seems to impose no restriction on the lens capabilities. Frame rate, auto focus, stabilization, handling, lens correction, everything works just like a native Canon RF-S lens.

FWIW.

Henri.

Click to expand...

I've been curious about this lens, but This review by C. Frost does not look good.

Click to expand...

Indeed, it doesn't seem to be the greatest lens Sigma has made, IQ wise. Still, it is cheap for a 2.8 zoom. It might work better on a lower res camera than on the R7.

Click to expand...

+1 Being the only player in town (with this combination of size, range, and price), I think a lot of people will find it very useful.

I would likely add it once I find a nice little walk-around crop R body (yes, one with a tilting LCD). Fortunately I already have a number of extremely capable standard zoom options that I can currently use (covering both crop and FF), but they're all larger than this little Sigma.

Henri P said:

But this is not the point, the point is that the integration of the RF protocol by Sigma is excellent and promising for the lenses to come.

Click to expand...

That does indeed sound promising!

R2

thunder storm said:

Henri P said:

thunder storm said:

Henri P said:

Rock and Rollei said:

Henri P said:

Klaus dk said:

YouTube has reviews of the lens by Christopher Frost, Gordon Laing and Jared Polin in varying English accents.

May be useful for those of us less fluent in French

Click to expand...

I'll check these. Their English is good enough for me

Click to expand...

i think they complement this one quite nicely, although I would question of Polin really is speaking English....

Click to expand...

You know what they say: UK and US are separated by the Atlantic Ocean and a common language. Nonetheless, Polin speaks in a way that is quite understandable to my ears, me being a non native English speaker. Never mind the accent, the effort to speak clearly matters most for me.

thunder storm said:

Those are full reviews of the lens, but don't really cover the aspects this one does in any detail.

Click to expand...

Correct. Damien covers the quality of the implementation of the RF protocol by Sigma. Which for me is quite important. I will probably buy the RF-S 23 when it is available.

thunder storm said:

I think we can actually see one of the benefits to consumers of Canon's approach to opening up the RF mount - had Sigma reverse engineered the protocols, as normal, it's unlikely that this lens would have had as many capabilities in the areas covered by this review. Paying a licensing fee has clearly given them much fuller access to the protocols, resulting in a less compromised lens. I've always considered the issue of third party lens availability on RF mount more a reaction on Canon's part to the dreadful behaviour of third party lens producers than anything else, and I think it's right that they not be allowed to rip off Canon's IP and also customers, with frankly substandard product in terms of incomplete communication protocols.

Click to expand...

I agree. It took time to get 3rd party RF lenses, but now we understand why. Like Damien, I hope that after these first RF-S lenses, we will have full frame RF lenses from Sigma, hopefully next year. My theory is that Canon first wanted to check how well Sigma could implement the protocol on a segment of the market, before allowing them to produce more lenses. Of course I can be wrong here.

Yet I was shocked to hear that Sony throttled down the capacities of lenses from Sigma (slower frame rate,

Click to expand...

Slower, true, but that's not exactly the same as slow, and for most applications it won't matter. Personally I don't use burst modes a lot, and when I do 10 fps is enough.

Click to expand...

I do not go above 15 FPS myself, but this is not the point. The same lens on the R7 does 30 FPS. Damien Bernal mounted it on the R6 II and checked it at 40 FPS without any problem. Some photographers need this.

Click to expand...

Fair enough.

thunder storm said:

thunder storm said:

thunder storm said:

longer minimum focusing distance,

Click to expand...

Do you have examples?

Click to expand...

My bad. I should have made it clearer that I am reporting what Damien Bernal says (in French). I regard him as a reliable and competent reviewer. I do not have the lens, nor intend to buy it.

Click to expand...

O.k., I'll watch it.

thunder storm said:

thunder storm said:

thunder storm said:

bad focus accuracy during bursts,

Click to expand...

Do you have examples?

Click to expand...

Same answer as above.

thunder storm said:

thunder storm said:

...). We are not talking about poor reverse engineering here, some of these restrictions are deliberate.

Click to expand...

the slower frame rate is a mild restriction, but I agree it's deliberate. Not sure about the other ones.

thunder storm said:

This will hurt them back in the long term, since the same lenses work flawlessly on Canon (and hopefully Nikon too).

Click to expand...

The Tamron 35-150mm f/2.0-2.8 works better on Sony compared to Nikon, other than frame rate no deliberate restrictions from Sony here.

thunder storm said:

It tells a lot about Sony's policies with regard to their own customers.

Also, considering the price of the 18-50 2.8, the royalties paid to Canon seem to be rather low. The lens is around 9€ more expensive for Canon than for Sony, sales tax included. That's about 7.5 € tax excluded, at the retail level, so it must be just 2 to 4 euros (or pounds or dollars) for Canon. Unless Sony also wants royalties...

Click to expand...

Canon needs Sigma to come up with an f/2.8 crop standard zoom. Sony doesn't, as Sony designed one themselves, whereas Canon didn't even bother to bring out their own one.

Click to expand...

Canon had a EF-S 17-55 2.8, so I do not agree they *need* Sigma for this.

Click to expand...

Let's disagree. I think that's an outdated lens. Not sharp wide open, bulky on the adapter. Look, I don't care about shooting a Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 Art adapted to my M6mkII, but that's not for everyone.

Click to expand...

Of course you are welcome to disagree ;-)

I never said that was a great lens, and the Sigma 18-50 being a Contemporary lens is nothing like an Art or Sport lens. According to the other reviewers, it seems good enough, which for the price and the aperture is not too bad. And they all tested, if I recall correctly, on the R7 which has a very demanding sensor.

The lens quality is not the point of Damien's video, he has not tested the lens yet. His point is that the integration to the RF system is seemingly flawless. That is what I thought interesting to report here. The other reviewers do not cover this aspect.

I was also surprised by his comments on Sony. He covers Sony gear in his reviews, I don't remember him being negative about the brand.

thunder storm said:

thunder storm said:

thunder storm said:

The Nikon version of the Tamron 35-150mm f/2.0-2.8 is 50 euro more expensive than the Sony version, so for more serious lenses those fees can become more substantial.

Click to expand...

Maybe it is a percentage, that would make sense.

Click to expand...

Yes, makes sense idd.

thunder storm said:

But it seems to be rather low, around 1.6 % for this lens (9€/560€). And maybe less considering Sigma's own extra R&D costs.

Click to expand...

2.8% for my example which is still not that bad.

Click to expand...

Steve Balcombe said:

dmanthree said:

Henri P said:

Hi all,

Damien Bernal has just released a first review of the new Sigma RF-S 18-50 2.8. The review is in French.

It is not a full review yet, but he makes some interesting observations: according to him, unlike Sony, Canon seems to impose no restriction on the lens capabilities. Frame rate, auto focus, stabilization, handling, lens correction, everything works just like a native Canon RF-S lens.

FWIW.

Henri.

Click to expand...

I've been curious about this lens, but This review by C. Frost does not look good.

Click to expand...

He is a bit lacking in enthusiasm, but Gordon Laing seems to like it. I like that Gordon compares it with the Canon kit lens, which it whips soundly, putting the performance into perspective.

I think it's a bit much to expect an affordable f/2.8 zoom to be super sharp in the corners wide open, and it's only at the wide end where this is an issue anyway. How often do you take f/2.8 shots at 28 mm equivalent, where the corners are in focus and need to be sharp?

I have an EF-mount Sigma 40 mm f/1.4 Art, which takes image quality to the logical extreme - but I will use the new 18-50 much, much more.

Click to expand...

Well, it looked pretty soft, to me, everywhere at 50mm.