"In the case of the 50L (both of them), it was an intentional design decision by Canon."
Neuro could you please guide me where I could read more about this? Find this so difficult to believe. Thx.
In the press release Canon state that their target market is portraits, etc, which accounts for weak corner sharpness.
But they do not provide a sharp lens to people who want to shoot sharp portraits and sharp landscapes and sharp street and sharp journalism photos at wide apertures?
Are there not many uses to a sharp 50mm lens at wide f stop?
This is just not going down well with me. Am not being obstinate but find this logic incomprehensible.
I'm curious why Canon HAS to make such a lens. Do you think Canon could do it cheaper than Zeiss, and that's why you want Canon to make one? There are SIGNIFICANT difficulties in making a lens sharp, corner to corner, at f/1.2. It would be EXTREMELY difficult to do so. It is even difficult to do it at f/1.4, which is clearly evident by the $4000 price tag the Otus has.
Why is it that you can't simply be satisfied with the fact that Zeiss has offered the exact kind of lens you want? Too expensive? If Canon made something similar, it wouldn't be any cheaper. If they made and f/1.2 version of the Otus, it would likely be significantly more expensive.
As for the rest of Canon's 50mm lenses, the 1.8 and 1.4 are VERY old lens designs, and the 50/1.2 is even getting a little dated. They were designed and built in an era where sensor resolution was lower than it is today. Canon surely has updates in the pipeline, and I'm sure when those new lenses hit the street, they will be competitive. Whether Canon chooses to compete with the Otus, or with the Sigmas of the world, is yet to be seen...but I would bet money that Canon ignores the Otus and sticks with what will sell in massive amounts: Something cost effective and affordable.