(Almost) right.
First, I'm not complaining, I'm thinking and asking.
Second, I didn't ask for cheap or midpriced lenses. I was talking about small, lightweight, optically superb, L quality prime lenses for upcoming high resolution sensors. Of course they can't be cheap, I never expected them to be.
Third - yes, I would like full frame tiny lenses, from Canon, for Canon cameras, and I still don't feel silly (your word).
Hi Paco
I follow what you are saying, but I'm not sure if small and lightweight (on the one hand) and optically superb and L build quality (on the other hand) is actually realistic. If you can give up a little bit of build quality, there are already good EF prime options which are fairly and small and light (eg 35/2 IS, etc, as noted in one of the earlier posts). I understand what you say about them not being weather sealed, but perhaps a cover for the camera and lens could deal with that at least if you are just talking about light rain?
Also, I'm not sure how much of a market there would be for prime lenses with a maximum aperture of, say, f/4. For the "price" of about 600g to 700g in weight, and a fairly moderate size in the context of lenses for full frame cameras, you can get f/4 zooms (such as 16-35 f/4L IS and 24-70 f/4L IS) with image stabilisation, L build quality, and very good optics. (And if you move up to around the 750g to 800g mark, the 70-200 f/4L IS v1 and v2 come into the picture. You could also include the 24-105 f/4L IS v1 and v2 in this discussion although it seems they are optically a little weaker than the others). Non-L primes such as the 35/2 IS generally weigh around 300g-ish, and my guess is an f/4 prime of the type you are looking for would end up being heavier than that. How many people would choose an f/4 prime which weighs even, say, 400g, over an f/4 zoom which gives them some flexibility in focal length for the "price" of another 200g? I anticipate you will say a prime could be better optically, and I assume that is correct, but at the same time the zooms have very good image quality (especially by the time you stop down to something like f/8 or f/11, as you often would for landscape shooting), reasonable size and weight given the optical quality, the flexibility which a zoom provides, the inclusion of IS and the L build quality. By the time you do some post processing, and deal with the issues which printing introduces (different types of paper and inks providing different levels of sharpness, etc), I question whether you would really see a difference in the final output, especially assuming you were shooting at something like f/8 or f/11. (I'm open to being convinced you would see a difference, but at least at this point I have my doubts.)
My guess is Canon will eventually release a range of f/1.8 primes or thereabouts (perhaps f/1.4 to f/2 depending on focal length) for the RF system which are relatively small and light (although I have doubts they will be L lenses). But given the EF lenses already available, and the adapter to use them on the R cameras, I don't think it is so hard to see why Canon is concentrating its early efforts on "high end" RF lenses. I can imagine those lenses enticing some people to give the R system a go, plus the very wide aperture lenses allow the accuracy of the R system's AF to be shown off (again enticing some people, eg portrait shooters, to give the R system a go), where if all that was on offer was another f/2.8 or even f/1.8 prime they might be happy to stick with what they have already. I know in my case I'm not particularly excited about mirrorless (eg I like the OVF and battery life of a DSLR), but the AF accuracy at wide apertures and the ability to put an AF point just about anywhere in the frame are the things which appeal to me about the RF system.