I do not disagree with you there.
It would need to be a business arrangement that benefits all parties.
Canon and Sigma will do what makes business sense for themselves whether or not it makes business sense to us.
Upvote
0
Canon will release a trio of RF mount wide angle L prime lenses in the first half of 2023
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
It would need to be a business arrangement that benefits all parties.
Canon and Sigma will do what makes business sense for themselves whether or not it makes business sense to us.
I agreed 100% with everything you wrote up to here.
I have no idea why anyone would buy a camera in the first place that did not have the lenses they want only to switch to another brand later.
Those people should have bought Sony in the first place unless they are unhappy with Sony for some other reason that would also have to change.
While Canon cares about profit they also care about market share.
I think Canon will probably end up licensing to third parties earlier than they plan to.
Canon has plenty of holes in their line up but it might hurt them to let third parties make lenses that Canon was going to make anyway.
Snapster seems to be more concerned with lenses that Canon will probably never make.
That is best argument that I have come across for Canon licensing to third parties.
Those would not be lost lens sales but could be lost camera sales.
That would be a thin line to walk though.
Upvote
0
You are misconstruing my statements. I am explaining, not defending. For some reason, people seem to think the stuff they want is logical and makes sense to everyone, and therefore it should happen. Personally, I try to live in the real world and understand the reasons things happen as they do (part of being a scientist, I suppose). That means that even for something I want to happen, I try to have a realistic understanding of the factors involved that make it more or less likely to actually happen.
Why should we all agree on that? Personally, I find that Canon's EF and RF lenses meet my needs. The one 3rd party lens I've bought is a Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 that I use (albeit rarely) for astrophotography (although when a narrower FoV works, the RF 28-70/2 delivers equivalent 'star-stopping'). It's a fully manual lens, so if for some reason I wanted to replace mine with an RF version, Canon isn't blocking those. So generally speaking, 3rd party AF lenses for the RF mount don't benefit me at all, since the Canon lenses meet my needs. Worth noting that they do so without the issues occurring that sometimes come up with 3rd party lenses that are reverse engineered to work with Canon bodies (e.g. the peripheral illumination problem a few years ago).
Absolutely wrong. A closed Canon RF mount with a limited Canon RF lens selection benefits Canon, at least that's the logical inference from Canon blocking 3rd parties from making AF lenses for the RF mount. Benefit for Canon is the exact reason the closed Canon RF mount with a limited Canon RF lens selection exists. That is my primary point. You seem to think Canon should open RF the mount because it benefits Canon shooters. Canon's goal is benefit for Canon. Benefit for Canon shooters is only a consideration insofar as it is required to get those shooters to buy more Canon products.
Generally, I agree. But would cheaper lenses made and sold by someone else benefit Canon? If not, which appears to be the case, why should Canon facilitate something that doesn't benefit them? They shouldn't, and they aren't. OTOH, they have licensed the RF mount and AF protocols to Red, because having RF lenses mount natively on Red cameras benefits Canon, enabling them to sell more lenses. That's how this works, and it's unfortunate that you can't seem to grasp these concepts.
Upvote
0
We all understand how businesses work and how their purpose is to maximize profits. Sometimes it's not best for the consumer, as is the case here. Canon can obviously do whatever they want with their patents.
Requesting mid-range lenses from Canon or the RF lens mount to be opened is not the same as "not getting it" as you seem to want to think. The businesses also need customer feedback and giving that to them is a more productive use of time than creating arguments on a forum.
Upvote
0
You don't need to see those mentioned 3rd party lenses. By far, your best value for the $$ if you are looking for weather sealed L lens quality lenses for your R5 camera, is buying used EF lenses. Far more economical than switching to Sony.
Upvote
0
We have no idea if Canon plans on negotiating licensing agreements with Tamron and Sigma (and perhaps others). NIkon just recently negotiated an agreement with Tamron and rumors have it that they are in negotiations with Sigma. Canon may eventually do the same, when they feel that their RF lens lineup is filled out. We just don't know. Considering the number of EF lens choices from both Canon and multiple 3rd party brands, I see no reason why people are in such a hurry to get these "theoretical" 3rd party choices.
It's kind of funny, I have been spending a lot of time of Facebook R7 camera groups since getting the camera. I think, in general, lots more newer camera users, and hobbyists there compared to those visiting here. And yet, they are using EF lenses, buying EF lenses for their R7, consider EF lenses, whether new or used, to be just as desirable a choice when considering lenses for their camera. They understand that high quality, less expensive than RF lenses are available - in great quantity. Maybe that's why Canon considers this category of lenses low priority when addressing the RF lens lineup. I think they have looked at the question, how many people would buy a new RF mid level non-L lens, if they can get a used EF L lens for the same price?
Upvote
0
My point isn't that the Canon 50 f1.4 would sell more or less than the 50mm f1.2. My point is that Canon knows world wide sales numbers and does world wide market research. The results of one camera store are essentially irrelevant. If they thought it would be one of their 25-30 most profitable lenses, than I think we would have seen the RF version. Can Canon be wrong? Of course they can. I'm sure 3-4 years ago they thought DSLRs would still be popular enough so that there would have been a 5D mark V, and perhaps another DSLR flagship. I think they have been surprised by the success of the R5 and R6, which apparently have sold so much better than projected that the high level DSLR is dead. The market is in great flux - and only so many (about 8) new RF lenses can be produced in a year. So we'll just have to wait and see.
Upvote
0
There are eleven 50mm Lenses available, Canon and third party - adoptable via RF/EF-Adapter:
RF 50/1.2L USM; RF 50/1.8 STM.
EF 50/1.8 STM; EF 50/1.4 USM; EF 50/1.2L USM; TS-E 50/2.8 Macro;
Zeiss Planar1,4/50; Zeiss Milvus 1.4/50; Zeiss Otus1,4/55; Zeiss Milvus 2.0/50 (Macro)
Sigma 50 MM/1,4 DG HSM ART.
Prices between 200€ and 3500€,
Speed f1.2, f1.4, f1.8, f2.0 and f2.8;
AF, MF, Macro and Tilt-Shift.
Not enough?
RF 50/1.2L USM; RF 50/1.8 STM.
EF 50/1.8 STM; EF 50/1.4 USM; EF 50/1.2L USM; TS-E 50/2.8 Macro;
Zeiss Planar1,4/50; Zeiss Milvus 1.4/50; Zeiss Otus1,4/55; Zeiss Milvus 2.0/50 (Macro)
Sigma 50 MM/1,4 DG HSM ART.
Prices between 200€ and 3500€,
Speed f1.2, f1.4, f1.8, f2.0 and f2.8;
AF, MF, Macro and Tilt-Shift.
Not enough?
Upvote
0
The point I was trying to make was, that it is very probable that Canon is not just looking at sales numbers for certain lens models, but at the whole camera and lens lineup .
What I mean by that: It could be that the big whites help them to sell more entry level cameras and lenses even if they don't make it in the "25-30 most profitable lenses" club, thus making those a priority over a lens like a 50mm 1.4 that would maybe make more profit, but hurt the sales of the whole system if released before other niches in the system are covered.
And yeah my experiences from one store are not really relevant when it comes to the worldwide sales. But maybe still more relevant than your assumption that the lens would not make it to the "25-30 most profitable lenses".
I think many lenses that are still to be released will make it to the club, but there may be other factors in play when people at Canon decide which lenses to prioritize.
Upvote
0
Of course, the other EF-Lenses will also be discontinued at some time. But at this time only Leica offers a similar amount of native and available 50mm Lenses:I wish there also was an EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro lens available
* Nocti 0.95; Nocti 1.2; Lux 1.4; Apo-Cron 2.0 and non-Apo-Cron 2.0 - five in sum.
Canon-Shooters have definitely a lot of choices in case of 50mm-Glass. No reason to complain.
Greetings - Andreas
Upvote
0
Things change over time. By your logic, no one would have moved to Sony when their comparatively better full frame bodies were released.
It was not their lenses that caused them to change systems
Snapster talks about the Sony 35/1.4 but it was only released last year and now wants Canon to do the same despite Sigma offering an Art version for EF.
I went from an old Canon DLSR to 7D+24-105/4 which was a big jump. I didn't really know what I was doing or whether I would get hooked by photography and buy another lens. One crumb after another (lens/body/lens/body) over many years has kept me in the Canon ecosystem. When R/RP were released I knew it would be a big step to migrate to mirrorless but the R wasn't enough for me. I could have jumped to Sony and adapted my EF lenses. The adapter issues and the features/ergonomics/familiarity/etc of the R5 meant that I didn't jump. The switching cost to Sony lenses was a disincentive for me and yet I have "upgraded" most of my EF to RF lenses happily... people are funny
There could be particular use cases that justify multiple systems for people. A single niche lens like the EF8-15mm/4, EF11-24mm/4, TS-E or MP-E65mm or RF1200mm could commercially justify a new body to suit.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Profit/shareholder return is the business imperative and especially long term profit/ROI for Japanese traditional management.
Market share is an interesting one... depends on the segment in some ways as each one needs to be approached differently.
Leica/Phase One etc have tiny market share but can still be profitable.
If Canon's market share is declining in a declining segment then their strategy isn't working and I am sure that they will look to other options.
That said, new R bodies and expensive RF lenses seem to be selling above expectations despite supply chain issues. That would indicate that they are doing better than they thought and their strategy is working.
Can you point to the glaringly obvious holes? High price points (RF600/4, 800/5.6) is one thing but focal length/aperture?
I always mention the 40mm pancake but it wouldn't be a profitable lens as a RF70-200mm for instance. A 50/1.4 seems obvious but there are already 3rd parties eg Sigma Art that do a good job there.
Their "holes" don't seem to be hurting them financially too much at this time.
Upvote
0
I do not think it is lack of demand as much as a lack of will. They like big flashy trophy glass that make people talk. And, as others mentioned, they totally blew it and made a shitty 50 EF for years, maybe they afraid of touching now
if the 50 1.2 came with a sherpa, it might sell better, but who the hell wants to carry that beast. not me! Sharp as hell, but, the size of fuel tanker.
Upvote
0
As someone who used the EF 50/1.4 a lot during the film era (when having a cheap fast lightweight lens was important, as the grain of the films with ISO higher than 400 was rarely acceptable), I lack the will to routinely carry such a lens for use on modern sensors.I do not think it is lack of demand as much as a lack of will. They like big flashy trophy glass that make people talk. And, as others mentioned, they totally blew it and made a shitty 50 EF for years, maybe they afraid of touching now
Upvote
0
1000% Canon says just use the current 50 1.4 on an adapter. They have not looked at that lens in so long they forget how shit it was. I tired 2 over the years and gave them away. One to my daughter, who after not very long, gave it back to me and said no thanks dad! I love the ef 85 1.8 for portatis and use it on a adapter, or bring an old 1d x mk 2 for portraits with that lens. But the 50 1.4 is a joke. Sometimes I bring 2 1d x mk 2, one with the 85 and one with the 135 f 2, for the obvious totally different effects.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
