cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

EOS R7 won't recognize Sigma 120-300mm F2.8

JRichards2012
Apprentice

I recently purchased a R7 with the purpose of pairing it with my Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 Sports.  However it will not recognize the lens. That lens works perfectly with my adapted R6. And the R7 works just fine with other adapted Sigma lenses. Yet refuses to recognize that Sigma lens that i purchased it for. I have cleaned the lens terminals, taken the battery out of the camera, and replaced.  It still will not work.  I updated the firmware to 1.6.0 as well. Nothing works. Any information on this would be greatly appreciated.  

1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

We can debate all we want here but the bottom line is that there is little to nothing that can be done to help with the original question. Canon will not release a firmware to address an issue found in a 3rd party lens that was not designed to be used with a R system. Sigma most likely will not release a firmware update for an EF lens to fix an issue with a R camera. On top of that, Canon is not making any more EF cameras so there is not any insensitive for Sigma to fix anything, in the way I see this whole matter. 
The only thing he can do is to use the lens in any other camera that works with that lens and forget about using it in the R7. Cruel but the reality. 



Frank
Gear: Canon EOS R6 Mark I, Canon 5D Mark III, EF100-400 L II, EF70-200 f2.8 II, RF50 and few other lenses.
Flickr, Blog: Click Fanatic.

View solution in original post

24 REPLIES 24

Both the R7 and Sigma lens have the most current firmware updates. 

shadowsports
Legend
Legend

🤣 I think you mean Rick and firmware for the 120-300 is available if you have a USB Dock for EF, but there is nothing for the R series if that's what you meant.  I'm going to let my dock go with my last Sigma lens, a 150-600c.  Waiting for it to go to a good home.  

shadowsports_0-1730323852828.png

~Rick
Bay Area - CA


~R5 C (1.0.7.1) ~RF Trinity, ~RF 100 Macro, ~RF 100~400, ~RF 100~500, +RF 1.4x TC, +Canon Control Ring, BG-R10, 430EX III-RT ~DxO PhotoLab Elite ~DaVinci Resolve ~Windows11 Pro ~ImageClass MF644Cdw/MF656Cdw ~Pixel 8
~CarePaks Are Worth It

March411
Mentor

LOL....Sorry you are correct, I did mean Rick. I am not even sure where Steve came from when responding.

The dock has been a bonus for me also, the plan is to hold onto it until (or if) my Sigma glass is replaced. Like you (posted screenshot) I didn't see anything in the firmware release to assist with compatibility with R bodies but it may be worth a shot if the OP has a dock.

 


No trees were destroyed in the posting of this message. However, a significant number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
Marc
Windy City

R3 ~ R5 ~ R6 Mk II ~ R50
Adobe and Topaz Suite for post processing
My Online Gallery

Tronhard
VIP
VIP

Marc:

I will let others judge who is making personal statements and getting aggressive. My post was not aimed in any way at you specifically but as a contribution to the discussion, which is my right. It's not about you, Marc: it's about the discussion and the misinformation out there which we both seem to want to combat.

In my original post, I sought to clarify the situation by asking an employee about this issue, I was transparent about what I did, the questions I asked and the answers I got. I expected them to generally reinforce a lot of what you had inferred to, but with a reasonable disclaimer about their responsibility for the design and manufacture of Sigma gear - which is pretty much what I got, without prompting.  I did not contort or skew that, it would be poor process to do so. If you don't like the answers I got then that's fine, but don't abuse me for publishing them.

Q3 was as a result of finding a reference to a compatibility table, and I asked the question so that any suggestion that Canon had taken responsibility for such a list could be responded to. My source responded as I expected and I hoped that would quieten the Canon naysayers.  Again, that was nothing to do with you at all. I had the right to ask these questions and seek an answer, yet you take this as a personal affront to your position and person. 
 
But I will take up the statement I make false statements about you.   I quoted your use of the words 'our customers' which could be interpreted in a couple of ways, one of which is that you are an employee of Canon, and I simply asked a question to clarify the issue - no more than that.  I never made any statement as such about your status for the purposes of transparency.  That interpretation is absolutely your choice and responsibility. 

Ironically, I think we both agree that Canon make a best effort to support their customers, so I see no point of contention there. To me, the question that has been bandied about by those who push misinformation (again, not aimed at you) is that somehow Canon must have binding responsibility to make their bodies work with 3rd-party legacy gear - by which I mean lenses that preceded the design and release of the R-series bodied. In fact these complaints have not been limited to Sigma, but for those with almost any aftermarket lens made for Canon - generally  out of ignorance.  I have fought hard on Canon's behalf to fight that narrative as it makes no sense technically or commercially. If you have followed my posts on such subjects over the years you will be perfectly aware of that.

Certainly, Canon have licensing agreements with Sigma, and that is perfectly normal. However the contents of such agreements are commercially sensitive and are almost never released, and to date I have not seen them but asked if you have if you can let us see them to scotch that misinformation that we both seem to agree is harmful and inaccurate.  That was not an attack, it was a request for supportive information.

I shall reiterate that this was never about you personally, and I am disappointed that you have taken it as such, the more so for your responses and obvious personal attack on me. I shall leave you to get on with it.


cheers, TREVOR

The mark of good photographer is less what they hold in their hand, it's more what they hold in their head;
"All the variety, all the charm, all the beauty of life is made up of light and shadow", Leo Tolstoy;
"Skill in photography is acquired by practice and not by purchase" Percy W. Harris

March411
Mentor

Trevor, again you distort what I said directly in my first response and you continue to argue the point when it is clear. Canon does not refuse to assist consumers with 3rd party gear. I never stated Canon must have binding responsibility to make their bodies work with 3rd-party legacy gear, you added this language to try and justify your argument.

Above you made the statement 


But I will take up the statement I make false statements about you. I quoted your use of the words 'our customers' which could be interpreted in a couple of ways, one of which is that you are an employee of Canon, and I simply asked a question to clarify the issue - no more than that. I never made any statement as such about your status for the purposes of transparency. That interpretation is absolutely your choice and responsibility.


That is why I made the suggestion you read and not skim. I quoted your post and responded, go back and review, it is your response to Q3 when the word "our" was used. So again to support you argument you distorted what I wrote to take the post further off track, I was using the information you supplied.

So I will close with this, Canon has stated to you that they always attempt to assist their customer.

That would mean that anyone stating that Canon would not offer support inaccurate. Read my first response, that is all I stated, that it was incorrect and I will continue to maintain that position especially your Q3 response from Canon states: We will always seek to be supportive of our customers, and our staff may, on an ad-hoc, purely case-by-case basis, and at their discretion, offer advice. 

My statement was clear, decisive and accurate. I did not discuss license agreements, body types or lens mounts.... just support. I have responded each time I felt there was clarity required or if additional inaccurate statements were made during the conversation. It's called accountability, not being aggressive, argumentative or testy. Maybe reflection is also required, I never used those terms because I thought we could have a conversation. 

The initial statement I made regarding support was simple but is what you took issue with because it didn't align with your position. And when the dust settles..... it was indeed accurate based on Canon's Q3 response.


No trees were destroyed in the posting of this message. However, a significant number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
Marc
Windy City

R3 ~ R5 ~ R6 Mk II ~ R50
Adobe and Topaz Suite for post processing
My Online Gallery

Avatar
Announcements