Launch schedule of SIGMA 10-18mm F2.8 DC DN | Contemporary for Canon RF Mount

When FF RF lenses will be available ?
When both Canon and Sigma decide they can make money doing that. My guess is that Canon wants more in licensing fees than Sigma or anybody else is willing to pay. Canon's problem with RF-S was that just about every R7 reviewer said that the camera is great but the lack of lenses makes it an unattractive purchase. Sigma just needs to add a small and light 50-135 f/2.8 DC DN C lens and maybe port their 70 f/2.8 macro lens to RF. That will be "enough".
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Thanks for your inputs
Regarding your tips for avoiding coma. How do you process? With a tracker? I do not use tracker, I stack pictures shoot on tripod and should you have a process to improve coma, your are more than welcome.
By extension, I do not see how I could to get more mp from a A7S2 without a tracker. How do you process?
Thanks
Best regards
A tracker will not give more mp. It allows for longer exposures without trailing.
Stacking reduces noise but doesn't give more mp.
You can do both stacking and tracking if you want for longer acquisition time and lower noise.
If you are shooting a panorama then you don't need to use the widest lens ie a 20+mm lens can have less coma than a 14mm lens.
Coma is most prevalent in the corners

If you use a single shot (panel) then you cannot avoid it. If you take multiple panels and overlap by 30% then only the centre portion of the image is used. The other pixels are used for matching during the stitching process and then thrown away hence the ones affected by coma. For a single row, the remaining pixels affected by coma will be on the far sides and top. No coma on the bottom as it will be the foreground with no stars. If you shoot enough panels then you can crop the sides and top and have no coma.

When stitching using PTGui (the best stitching software), you get a lot more pixels. For a 14mm lens x 7 panels for a single row of 7 shots on the R5 (milky way bow), I get a resulting ~600mp image after some cropping.

Using a A7Sii, a single image (stacked or not, tracked or not) will give you 12mp with low noise. Note that having larger pixels helps with longer exposures as trailing is less (field of view per pixel is lower with less pixels).
In your scenario of a single shot, you can take more images eg 1 row of 3 and then stitch them and crop back to the same field of view. This will remove the pixels with coma for the sides. If you were originally shooting landscape orientation then change to portrait and crop for the top as well.
If you use a 20+mm lens and then stitch then you get more pixels for the same field of view as a 14mm lens.

The question is how big you are printing as you may not need more than 12mp. Whether a viewer will ever see the coma in an image (social media or printed) is also debatable vs pixel peeping at 1:1 on a screen.

You can track and get 2 minute exposure. Stack 2 of them for 4 minute acquisition time and then 7 portrait panels. 20mm lens with 30% overlap in portrait orientation gives approximately 180 degree field of view horizontally when stitched. Panorama for the sky would take ~30 minutes. Another 7 shots untracked for the foreground. Acquisition time will vary depending on how much light is available and whether taken during twilight or at night (with or without artificial lighting).

Trevor Dobson has been using 85mm for milky way panorama stitching 210 images!!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/trevor_dobson_inefekt69

Hope this helps.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
Canon should over a mount conversion service like this for EF-M lenses.
I contacted the Sigma USA Service Dept. They expect to offer lens mount conversion from EF-M to RF mount but don't yet have the information (and probably parts) to do it, including pricing. I plan to wait three months and try again. I didn't ask if the lens(es) had to go to Japan or could be done here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
A tracker will not give more mp. It allows for longer exposures without trailing.
Stacking reduces noise but doesn't give more mp.
You can do both stacking and tracking if you want for longer acquisition time and lower noise.
If you are shooting a panorama then you don't need to use the widest lens ie a 20+mm lens can have less coma than a 14mm lens.
Coma is most prevalent in the corners

If you use a single shot (panel) then you cannot avoid it. If you take multiple panels and overlap by 30% then only the centre portion of the image is used. The other pixels are used for matching during the stitching process and then thrown away hence the ones affected by coma. For a single row, the remaining pixels affected by coma will be on the far sides and top. No coma on the bottom as it will be the foreground with no stars. If you shoot enough panels then you can crop the sides and top and have no coma.

When stitching using PTGui (the best stitching software), you get a lot more pixels. For a 14mm lens x 7 panels for a single row of 7 shots on the R5 (milky way bow), I get a resulting ~600mp image after some cropping.

Using a A7Sii, a single image (stacked or not, tracked or not) will give you 12mp with low noise. Note that having larger pixels helps with longer exposures as trailing is less (field of view per pixel is lower with less pixels).
In your scenario of a single shot, you can take more images eg 1 row of 3 and then stitch them and crop back to the same field of view. This will remove the pixels with coma for the sides. If you were originally shooting landscape orientation then change to portrait and crop for the top as well.
If you use a 20+mm lens and then stitch then you get more pixels for the same field of view as a 14mm lens.

The question is how big you are printing as you may not need more than 12mp. Whether a viewer will ever see the coma in an image (social media or printed) is also debatable vs pixel peeping at 1:1 on a screen.

You can track and get 2 minute exposure. Stack 2 of them for 4 minute acquisition time and then 7 portrait panels. 20mm lens with 30% overlap in portrait orientation gives approximately 180 degree field of view horizontally when stitched. Panorama for the sky would take ~30 minutes. Another 7 shots untracked for the foreground. Acquisition time will vary depending on how much light is available and whether taken during twilight or at night (with or without artificial lighting).

Trevor Dobson has been using 85mm for milky way panorama stitching 210 images!!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/trevor_dobson_inefekt69

Hope this helps.

A tracker will not give more mp. It allows for longer exposures without trailing.
Stacking reduces noise but doesn't give more mp.
You can do both stacking and tracking if you want for longer acquisition time and lower noise.
If you are shooting a panorama then you don't need to use the widest lens ie a 20+mm lens can have less coma than a 14mm lens.
Coma is most prevalent in the corners

If you use a single shot (panel) then you cannot avoid it. If you take multiple panels and overlap by 30% then only the centre portion of the image is used. The other pixels are used for matching during the stitching process and then thrown away hence the ones affected by coma. For a single row, the remaining pixels affected by coma will be on the far sides and top. No coma on the bottom as it will be the foreground with no stars. If you shoot enough panels then you can crop the sides and top and have no coma.

When stitching using PTGui (the best stitching software), you get a lot more pixels. For a 14mm lens x 7 panels for a single row of 7 shots on the R5 (milky way bow), I get a resulting ~600mp image after some cropping.

Using a A7Sii, a single image (stacked or not, tracked or not) will give you 12mp with low noise. Note that having larger pixels helps with longer exposures as trailing is less (field of view per pixel is lower with less pixels).
In your scenario of a single shot, you can take more images eg 1 row of 3 and then stitch them and crop back to the same field of view. This will remove the pixels with coma for the sides. If you were originally shooting landscape orientation then change to portrait and crop for the top as well.
If you use a 20+mm lens and then stitch then you get more pixels for the same field of view as a 14mm lens.

The question is how big you are printing as you may not need more than 12mp. Whether a viewer will ever see the coma in an image (social media or printed) is also debatable vs pixel peeping at 1:1 on a screen.

You can track and get 2 minute exposure. Stack 2 of them for 4 minute acquisition time and then 7 portrait panels. 20mm lens with 30% overlap in portrait orientation gives approximately 180 degree field of view horizontally when stitched. Panorama for the sky would take ~30 minutes. Another 7 shots untracked for the foreground. Acquisition time will vary depending on how much light is available and whether taken during twilight or at night (with or without artificial lighting).

Trevor Dobson has been using 85mm for milky way panorama stitching 210 images!!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/trevor_dobson_inefekt69

Hope this helps.
Thank you so much for your excellent answer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Not to be "that guy" but isn't it a 16-30mm f/4.2 "equivalent" lens in terms of light gathering/DOF?
While the point has been made, the f-stop conversion to 4.2 may be accurate for - but only for - depth of field purposes.

"Less total light gathered" is exactly balanced out by the smaller size of the sensor it's gathered for. Since it's distributed across a proportionally smaller area, each point on the sensor still gets the same amount of light. When it comes to registering how much light it got, each photosite doesn't know or care what its neighbors got or even whether they exist.

So for purposes of exposure, it's an f/2.8 lens.

For purposes of comparing depth of field the conversion you made may apply.

However, for figuring out "Does it give me enough light to take a picture?" the f/stop number inscribed on the lens is what matters.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
While the point has been made, the f-stop conversion to 4.2 may be accurate for - but only for - depth of field purposes.

"Less total light gathered" is exactly balanced out by the smaller size of the sensor it's gathered for. Since it's distributed across a proportionally smaller area, each point on the sensor still gets the same amount of light. When it comes to registering how much light it got, each photosite doesn't know or care what its neighbors got or even whether they exist.

So for purposes of exposure, it's an f/2.8 lens.

For purposes of comparing depth of field the conversion you made may apply.

However, for figuring out "Does it give me enough light to take a picture?" the f/stop number inscribed on the lens is what matters.
Yes, but when taking the whole frame into account (which we should since we’re photography enthusiasts rather than photosite enthusiasts) the high iso performance of a full frame sensor will negate that light advantage anyway
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Come back and say that after you shoot an image in low light at ISO 12800 on APS-C and FF cameras at the ‘same’ f/2.8.

Whoever told you sensor size doesn’t matter was lying.
The ISO noise is a product of the much smaller photosites on the R7 which has a higher pixel density than any other Canon, As each can only gather a smaller amount of light there's more noise. Where do you think the noise is coming from? The photosites that aren't there because it's a smaller sensor?

Go to photonstophotos.net and look at the noise curves of the R5 Mark II, R6 Mark II and R7 (you can toggle them on and off in the list on the right). You'll see that the R5 series is closer to the R7 than to the R6 series.
 
Upvote 0
The ISO noise is a product of the much smaller photosites on the R7 which has a higher pixel density than any other Canon, As each can only gather a smaller amount of light there's more noise. Where do you think the noise is coming from? The photosites that aren't there because it's a smaller sensor?

Go to photonstophotos.net and look at the noise curves of the R5 Mark II, R6 Mark II and R7 (you can toggle them on and off in the list on the right). You'll see that the R5 series is closer to the R7 than to the R6 series.
Saying it twice means you can copy and paste text, not that you understand the principles. I won't reply here, there are responses from me and others in the R7 thread that may help you understand.
 
Upvote 0