It's native to Leica L or Sony FE mounts and the latter can be adapted to Nikon Z mount.
No DSLR can adapt mirrorless lenses. Only Nikon Z mount can readily adapt other mirrorless mounts (Fuji X and Sony FE mounts can be adapted to Nikon Z).
With Sigma's recent fast telephoto releases, they could have designed the optics to accommodate the EF mount. Sure, mirrorless users would have been penalized with a ~1" longer lens. But Sigma would have been able to access anyone willing to adapt EF mount.
That said, as cool as this 135/1.4 is. And the fact that Sigma actually released one. I'm actually not that blown away by the bokeh difference between it and the various 135/1.8 lenses. If it took TCs, I'd maybe think a bit differently. But if I was shooting Sony, I'd be all over the 50-150/2. I'm actually seeing a lot of those on football sidelines now. Meanwhile I'm still waiting for Canon to release an xx-135/2 that I've been asking for, for years since getting the 28-70/2. Canon were leaders with that lens, but let the opportunity to release an f/2 tele zoom years ago slip away. It's about the only lens (lack of) decision by Canon where I think they dropped the ball. That and the missing 200-500/4 TC.
I'm actually surprised that Sigma does not do the long(er) AF lenses for Canon in EF mount.
They'd work both on DSLRs and mirrorlesses, and don't need any other change than a shorter lens body. But maybe that means a lot of tooling highly specific just for a Canon version.
And of course, it might have not made the native Canon crop AF lenses agreement possible after all.
MintMar wrote:
I'm actually surprised that Sigma does not do the long(er) AF lenses for Canon in EF mount.
They'd work both on DSLRs and mirrorlesses, and don't need any other change than a shorter lens body. But maybe that means a lot of tooling highly specific just for a Canon version.
And of course, it might have not made the native Canon crop AF lenses agreement possible after all.
There isn’t a market for Anyone to invest in making an EF mount lens.
Let’s be honest, that mount is dead for anything new. It’s a phenomenal mount and will continue into the future due to all the EF bodies still in use but it’s not a new revenue stream/new product investment for any company at this point. Even Canon isn’t making anything new.
I think Canon stopped making anything new in 2020-
At least they're doing it. And they've come a long way in a relatively short time. I think in the next 5-10 years we're going to see a significant push from Chinese brands into this space with very, very interesting and excellent lenses. Possibly a repeat of how Godox evolved from an entry-level flash manufacturer (cloner), to a market segment disruptor, to the current dominant market segment brand.
RustyRus wrote:
Let’s be honest, that mount is dead for anything new. It’s a phenomenal mount and will continue into the future due to all the EF bodies still in use but it’s not a new revenue stream/new product investment for any company at this point. Even Canon isn’t making anything new.
I think Canon stopped making anything new in 2020-
I agree, it's dead for Canon. But for a third party lens manufacturer who is otherwise undercutting OEMs with lenses that are as good or better than the OEMs, they're losing potential customers by not finding a workaround to Canon (and to a slightly lesser degree, Nikon) locking them out of their mirrorless mounts. Releasing EF versions wouldn't be aimed at DSLR customers, it would be solely to bypass the mirrorless mount barrier imposed by the OEMs. The only real (technical) problem to this 'solution' is that the optics either have to be redesigned specifically for the EF version, or it has to be made for the EF mount and 'forced' onto mirrorless via a longer than necessary design. That could potentially be a significant tradeoff that many users in the Sony and L mount camps might not accept. So maybe that's why Sigma has all but ignored Canon users (of course no thanks to Canon), because they see satisfying the E, L and E adapted to Z markets as 'good enough'.
RustyRus wrote:
There isn’t a market for Anyone to invest in making an EF mount lens.
Let’s be honest, that mount is dead for anything new. It’s a phenomenal mount and will continue into the future due to all the EF bodies still in use but it’s not a new revenue stream/new product investment for any company at this point. Even Canon isn’t making anything new.
I think Canon stopped making anything new in 2020-
EF mount cameras are dead for sure, since also nobody else was producing them than Canon, but as long as the EF lens work on a RF body, how can EF lens design be dead?
At least they're doing it. And they've come a long way in a relatively short time. I think in the next 5-10 years we're going to see a significant push from Chinese brands into this space with very, very interesting and excellent lenses. Possibly a repeat of how Godox evolved from an entry-level flash manufacturer (cloner), to a market segment disruptor, to the current dominant market segment brand.
I agree, it's dead for Canon. But for a third party lens manufacturer who is otherwise undercutting OEMs with lenses that are as good or better than the OEMs, they're losing potential customers by not finding a workaround to Canon (and to a slightly lesser degree, Nikon) locking them out of their mirrorless mounts. Releasing EF versions wouldn't be aimed at DSLR customers, it would be solely to bypass the mirrorless mount barrier imposed by the OEMs. The only real (technical) problem to this 'solution' is that the optics either have to be redesigned specifically for the EF version, or it has to be made for the EF mount and 'forced' onto mirrorless via a longer than necessary design. That could potentially be a significant tradeoff that many users in the Sony and L mount camps might not accept. So maybe that's why Sigma has all but ignored Canon users (of course no thanks to Canon), because they see satisfying the E, L and E adapted to Z markets as 'good enough'....Show more →
Thats the thing- I would never use an adapter to put on a third parth lens. I value compactness over just about all other things (new Zeiss lens not included)
The only reason Canon is being ignored is because of Canon. To be fair though, I think the lens lineup from Canon right now is about as good as it gets. I do wish they would release an L badged f/2 prime series that is compact but I can keep dreaming someone will do it!
RustyRus wrote:
Thats the thing- I would never use an adapter to put on a third parth lens. I value compactness over just about all other things (new Zeiss lens not included)
The only reason Canon is being ignored is because of Canon. To be fair though, I think the lens lineup from Canon right now is about as good as it gets. I do wish they would release an L badged f/2 prime series that is compact but I can keep dreaming someone will do it!
Ah, I don't mind using adapter for the lenses. As long as it is well designed and has no optics. I am using a RF camera as better focusing EF camera for the EF lenses, so this is why I wouldn't mind another EF lens. Basically I now understand the EF-RF adapter as an integral part of my RF cameras and I have it on all of them.
The compactness only works for wide end lenses which don't have to have a rearfocus group, long RF lenses have to be "EF-RF adapter longer" than long EF lenses, so this basically cancels itself out in my eyes.
Perhaps you all are aware, but I'm being told that Canon deliberately restricts cooperatively with 3rd party lens manufacturers. This is the explanation, I am told, for then absence of RF mount on this Sigma lens. Interesting in several ways.
MintMar wrote:
Ah, I don't mind using adapter for the lenses. As long as it is well designed and has no optics. I am using a RF camera as better focusing EF camera for the EF lenses, so this is why I wouldn't mind another EF lens. Basically I now understand the EF-RF adapter as an integral part of my RF cameras and I have it on all of them.
The compactness only works for wide end lenses which don't have to have a rearfocus group, long RF lenses have to be "EF-RF adapter longer" than long EF lenses, so this basically cancels itself out in my eyes. ...Show more →
I guess I just don't understand why any manufacturer would develop a lens or adapt a lens to a mount that is literally not in production anymore. Its great there are still ample EF lenses to use but that ship has sailed to make new lenses for it.
RustyRus wrote:
I guess I just don't understand why any manufacturer would develop a lens or adapt a lens to a mount that is literally not in production anymore. Its great there are still ample EF lenses to use but that ship has sailed to make new lenses for it.
If all was too different then perhaps it might not have much sense, but in a way, RF is just EF with shorter flange distance and Sigma had been producing EF lenses for ages. They have all they need already at home. That would be a way to make a legal fullframe AF lens for RF. Of course, I'm entertaining a process that is pretty much doable, it's not a hypothetic question.
Sigma would have to design a completely different version for EF which would make it extra large when adapted to RF which most likely would result in heavily reduced sales.
For wide lens, definitely. For tele lens, it depends on how far the last element of the construction is. if it's further than the EF flange distance, "only" the outside barrel should be really different from the ML version, basically - just EF-RF adapter shorter. If there is some additional optics within that part, then yes, a new design would have to be created unfortunately.
Can't say for sure from this scheme though, but maybe this is the latter case.
SNJOps wrote:
Sigma would have to design a completely different version for EF which would make it extra large when adapted to RF which most likely would result in heavily reduced sales.
I wonder how the Laowa EF 200mm 2.0 compares size wise to the other versions then
^ I think he means the length, due to the need for it to be designed for EF mount compatibility and the necessity to use the adapter, which adds another inch of length. RustyRus wrote:
Thats the thing- I would never use an adapter to put on a third parth lens. I value compactness over just about all other things (new Zeiss lens not included)
The only reason Canon is being ignored is because of Canon. To be fair though, I think the lens lineup from Canon right now is about as good as it gets. I do wish they would release an L badged f/2 prime series that is compact but I can keep dreaming someone will do it!
I think we agree for the most part. I'm also generally happy with Canon's RF lens designs and priorities (except for lack of an f2 telephoto zoom to pair with the 28-70/2). I also don't expect Canon to continue releasing new EF lenses.
But my point is, as a third party lens designer/producer who has not been shy about chasing niche users with very focused releases, Sigma is ignoring a potentially significant market of Canon users, and others, who will not be sensitive to adapter use if a given lens is interesting or unique enough. I think the 135/1.4, 200/2 and 300-600/4 IMO are very interesting, especially considering their prices. Given the large size of these lenses due to the necessity of their designs, adding an inch of length is less the dealbreaker than at other focal length ranges, especially the 300-600 which is not hand holdable (for long) and would require at least use of a monopod. It is also the most niche lens of the trio and one that probably could benefit most from exposure to as broad a range of potential users as possible.
Of course an EF mount version is a compromise for Canon RF users, but this is the tradeoff if someone wants to continue using Canon's RF system for its other benefits. And every system has tradeoffs. With Sigma lenses on Sony it's 15fps and no TC support, apparently. That for me is actually a huge disincentive compared to a 1" longer lens that otherwise operates at the camera's maximum frame rate and might be TC compatible. If I was seriously interested in these lenses, then it would be on L mount, but the relatively poor AF performance of those bodies is another potential dealbreaker. So I'd then be looking at adapting Sigma in FE mount to Nikon Z, but I believe none of those do faster than 20 fps RAW... and I'm a bit skeptical about the AF performance of adapting across brands.
