Will We Finally See Sigma Lenses for Canon RF Mount?

Canon has clamped down tightly on the RF mount, disallowing essentially any third-party lenses with autofocus. This has been to the dismay of many photographers who embraced lenses from companies like Sigma and Tamron, which often offered options that were either cheaper or simply not available from Canon itself. At least one company is still highly interested in the RF mount, as recently confirmed by Sigma's CEO, Kazuto Yamaki.

In a recent interview with Photolari, Sigma CEO discussed a range of topics about the company. Perhaps most interesting was the topic of the Canon RF mount, on which Yamaki confirmed the company is "very interested." Of course, this could mean several things:

  • Yamaki was simply expressing the fact that yes, Sigma would like to expand its library to the RF mount if given the opportunity.
  • Sigma and Canon are actively working on an agreement behind the scenes.
  • Sigma is trying to drum up public pressure on Canon to open the RF mount, a la Google pushing RCS messaging on Apple. 

Certainly, I hope Canon will open the RF mount, even if it's through licensing. While the RF mount lenses have been highly impressive, more options is always a good thing, and no single company covers every possible lens offering. You can watch the full interview above (auto-generated captions are available by clicking the "CC" button).

Alex Cooke's picture

Alex Cooke is a Cleveland-based portrait, events, and landscape photographer. He holds an M.S. in Applied Mathematics and a doctorate in Music Composition. He is also an avid equestrian.

Log in or register to post comments

I would love* to see sigma rf mount on Canon mirorless and I m VERY mad at canon not allowing them to produce these lenses . If they dont , I will start a Sony system and slowly move on towards a Sony system


I can't believe someone downvoted your comment. What you said makes much sense, and I feel exactly the same way you do. I am interested in what works best for ME, and I am not interested in Canon's bottom line profits.

Exactly my thoughts. I will hate to loose my investment, but cameras are not like a football team that I have to be loyal to.

People who down voted his comments are your typical canon diehards who are obsessed with brand loyalty instead of making well informed, financially intelligent decisions. I'm currently in the process of switching systems and i feel excited about it. It cost the same to switch to Sony and achieving a "canon look" takes a couple minutes in post. However, most pics look great out of camera.
People can do what they want, and those who want to stick with canon ? well more power to em. But I encourage anyone disgusted by canons 3rd party ban...to seriously consider Sony or Nikon. Rent a camera for a couple days, watch reviews and see how you like it. Having access to the wide variety of lenses PLUS the gmaster line which is sonys L version equivalent....is great. I feel like I've future proofed my camera system.

If the rumors are true, Sigma are announcing Nikon Z-mount lenses in February at the CP+ show. This would put good pressure on Canon to reconsider 3rd party glass.


Nikon has to firstly fix that AF... They are so far the worse of the Canon, Sony, Nikon trio.. Canon still has the best sales results and market share so I don't really think that they are or will be under much of pressure. Btw how many of us remember how people started moving from Canon to Sony and Nikon few years back, because Sony and Nikon had better dynamic range? There will be always something...

I agree with most of what you say but downvoted you because your assertion about Nikon AF is extreme hyperbole. Canon or Sony may be better--debatable, they all excel in different contexts (does Sony eye AF still focus on eye lashes rather than eyes?)--but the AF in all three systems is at such a high level compared to DSLRs that AF is not a differentiating factor. As a user of all three systems (my avatar was taken with an R5; I tend to travel with the R5, but I do birding with my Nikon Z9) I find the Z9 to be the best birding camera I have used. Since I haven't used the A1 and R3, I'm not claiming the Z9 is the best, but given the incredible and unmatched Nikon lens offerings for wildlife photography, I am extremely happy with my choice. Currently, as always, the system that has the glass you need should be the determining factor rather than marginal differences in AF performance.

Well to be honest having a unmatched Nikon lens with camera which is not working as good as other two top sellers when it comes to AF speed and accuracy is probably the same point as RF not being released to 3rd party lens manufacturers... It will most likely end up the same way. Could that be the point of it all?

Your statement is heavily misleading. Canon has the highest market share but Sony has, by FAR the largest market growth in the last decade. And since I'm in the process of switching from canon to Sony, I can easily understand why.

If you have been with Canon all the way until now it isn't the lenses that let you make the decision.. Or if so tell us what lenses you need that canon can't offer

Canon is taking a super hardline approach that could be their downfall. It would be a different story if it were just Canon and Nikon in the full frame mirrorless race. They have a real contender with Sony in terms of capabilities and marketshare. Canon can only rest on their EF laurels for so long.

Canon will eventually open up to licensing the RF mount to third parties, but only after they’ve established a solid lineup of native RF lenses, and started to seep into the second hand market too.

People claiming to be Canon shooters moving to other brands because of this are full of shit. No Canon shooter with an EF glass lineup is going to sell it all and move systems. They’ll use their EF glass, maybe buy an RF lens, and wait.

I'm sure there's a few that have moved and it seems like a lot because of the very vocal minority that's upset because Canon dare protect their stuff. However, we should cheer those willing to take a huge hit to their photo piggy bank to change brands. It keeps the money flowing into photography and once the licensing is completed, there's a fair chance that those that left will return and spend a bunch more money. If find it rather amusing and I can speak from experience. My R5 made my EF based lenses work BETTER.

But, trying to explain human nature is like herding the proverbial cats. :-)


David Blacker wrote,

"People claiming to be Canon shooters moving to other brands because of this are full of shit. No Canon shooter with an EF glass lineup is going to sell it all and move systems. They’ll use their EF glass, maybe buy an RF lens, and wait."

David, not all Canon shooters who threaten to switch are full of shit. My friend Shawn and my friend Jon both sold off all of their Canon bodies and lenses and replaced them with Sony equivalents. As wildlife photographers with multiple true supertelephotos, this means they each abandoned over $30,000 in Canon gear to switch to Sony.

By the way, you do NOT lose money when you switch from one system to another. Those who buy intelligently and frugally can usually recoup most, or all, of the money they initially spent on their gear.

For instance, my friend Shawn shopped and shopped and shopped for a great price on a Canon 600mm f4 before he bought one. Then when he switched to Sony a few years later, he sold it for over $1,000 more than he paid for it.

I could sell all of my Canon bodies and lenses for almost as much as I paid originally. In fact, the last lens I just bought in September for my Canon EF mount, I could sell in a heartbeat for a $300 profit. Paid $1,150, could easily sell today for $1,450.

The idea that you lose money when you abandon a system is poppycock, unless you're the idiot who pays the going retail rate for brand new gear.


If all he ever buys is used gear, neither Canon nor Sony care the least little bit about what he shoots.


Both Jon and Shawn were smart enough to buy very competitively priced gear, including some used items, when they bought Canon lenses, but each of them bought all new gear when they switched to Sony. Each bought two of the top bodies, each bought a 600mm f4 and a 200-600mm f6.3, along with other shorter cheaper lenses. So each has spent around $25,000 on brand new Sony gear over the past 2 1/2 years. And it doesn't matter at all if Canon or Sony care about what they buy, does it? I don't know why you even brought that up. What difference does it make what the manufacturers think?


full of shit? Whatever.

"Canon will eventually open up to licensing the RF mount to third parties" that is absolute and total speculation. Post one single link where canon has been confirmed and verified to have said this. And it's definitely not a vocal minority which is concerned about this horrible choice by canon. Sony is an excellent alternative to canon. And reading multiple analysis shows how much of a myth canon color science is. Canon is a cult brand pure and simple. And this is coming from an canon user. I like to have a full range of options when choosing lenses and being restricted from that is all the reason I need to sell my kit. It actually won't cost anything more to switch.

Canon isn't going to license RF mount. Canon did not license EF mount. Sigma will have to figure out how to reverse engineering RF without infringing on Canon's patents just like they did with EF lenses. Reverse engineering is part of the reason early Sigma EF lenses weren't as reliable as Canon lenses.

Reverse engineering might be more difficult now than it was then.

"Certainly, I hope Canon will open the RF mount, even if it's through licensing"

That's usually how opening IP works, see, e.g. the Gnu Public License. Otherwise Canon would lose control of RF.

Michael L,

Good point about the reverse engineering not being as reliable as the Canon lenses.

I'm currently using a Sigma lens as my main lens on Canon EF bodies. The autofocus is not nearly as good, fast, or reliable as the native Canon lenses. Neither is the Image Stabilization.

But Canon refuses to make a 60-600mm lens, or any other 10x zoom supertelephoto, so I must use Sigma because they are the only company making the lens that I need.

If Canon made a 60-600mm f6.3m and it was double the cost of the Sigma, I would gladly buy it in a heartbeat. But Canon will not make a lens with a truly useful range, so they are forcing me to either use a 3rd party lens or not be able to compose images the way that I want. I will choose the former every time.


Canon does not produce a fast prime RF lens that is optimized for landscape astrophotography. Canon never has produced such a lens, and I have heard of no plans to do so. Sigma, with their new 20mm F/1.4 DG DN ART lens has come up with the perfect such lens, free of peripheral coma and astigmatism. Although I have 2 Canon R5 bodies, I am planning to get a Sony a7r4 for the specific purpose of pairing with this new Sigma lens.

Good luck with Sony's "star eating" on-die noise reduction. Why not just adapt a Sigma ART lens in EF mount to your R5 bodies? EF lenses used on RF mount cameras with an EF→RF adapters lose absolutely no functionality nor AF speed (which shouldn't matter for astro work even if they did).

I have the Sigma 14mm and 24mm ART
lenses with EF mounts already which I use for astro. The recently introduced Sigma 20mm f1.4 DG DN lens eliminated peripheral batwings, which is the holy grail for astro. Few lenses even come close to this. None made by Canon in any mount.