There are 9 RF L-series primes and 11 RF L-series zooms. Not sure how that qualifies as 'not fleshing out' the L-series prime lineup. I suspect what you mean is that they've ignored the fast, wide angle primes so far. But outside of that, there are L-series primes ranging from 50mm - 1200mm.
I agree. I'm not the one suggesting that Canon is failing or will fail for not providing prosumer f/1.4 primes. I have no doubt they clearly understand where their efforts are best spent to maximize return on investment (of R&D, marketing, etc.). I'm just sick of seeing the corporate simping every time someone says that Canon "needs" to make moderately sized f/1.4 primes. We get it, Canon knows their sales figures and market segments better than anyone on these forums. People aren't going to stop talking about their want/"need" for f/1.4 lenses, but I guess they have to be put in their place... every, single, time..........
which results in every other post from a specific member being corporate mansplaining about "Canon knows best", intended to belittle those who want something more affordable and less heavy than "statement lenses" that are still better than the "rice & beans" tier of RF primes.
Yes, many people have demonstrated they have the business acumen of a bowling ball. Being told that doesn't seem to stop them from posting the same inane comments.
I think "corporate simping" is unfair. I dunno how long you've been on these forums but we've had people throwing tantrums for at least the decade I've been here - though the reasons have varied over the years. I don't think it's inappropriate to remind those people that in all that time, Canon's strategy has succeeded, by the only metric we have which is sales (however calculated). Sure it can be repetitive, but so are the trolls.I agree. I'm not the one suggesting that Canon is failing or will fail for not providing prosumer f/1.4 primes. I have no doubt they clearly understand where their efforts are best spent to maximize return on investment (of R&D, marketing, etc.). I'm just sick of seeing the corporate simping every time someone says that Canon "needs" to make moderately sized f/1.4 primes. We get it, Canon knows their sales figures and market segments better than anyone on these forums. People aren't going to stop talking about their want/"need" for f/1.4 lenses, but I guess they have to be put in their place... every, single, time..........
In the end, the complaining masses will "win" the argument, not by objectively correct viewpoints, but simply by volume; trying to "correct" them only serves to make yourself look/feel superior for understanding market forces and product management, and make the masses look feeble for thinking they know what an industry giant should do better than the giant itself. Should people realize their wants are wants, and that they aren't representative of the market? Absolutely! But most people aren't nearly that self-aware, especially when they want something reeeeeally baaaad.
Yes, that is what I meant by "stopped at the 50mm".
@clearwaterphotog joined 4 months ago. S/he seems to have been perseverating on this issue from the early on in his/her tenure.
Funny how different photographers can be!
Makes sense.
The EF 35/1.4L II is one of the most recent L primes for the EF mount, launched in 2015. I suspect that factored into the decision to give the RF version a lower priority. But the 24/1.4L II is now 15 years old and could be improved significantly (as was the case with the 50/1.2 and 85/1.2).
The RF 100/2.8L Macro launched in 2021.
My feelings are the same as they were in August. I'd rather hear about what people want to see even if it's the same asks. I grow tired of explanations that a business does what they think is right for them, just as tired as you are, if not more, of people asking/begging for something that doesn't exist yet. If we're not on this forum to talk about what we don't like about Canon, are we supposed to only talk about what we do like? Do you honestly want this place to be an echo chamber of agreeable individuals? Because it's already dangerously close to that.
I have zero problem with people asking/begging for something that doesn't exist yet. I do have a problem with people that claim the lack of that something (whatever it is) spells doom for Canon or that everyone else wants that something that they want.
Not sure how often this needs to be repeated until it becomes clear to you: say what you want, complain or praise, it's all good. Just don't claim that your opinions have any consequences for Canon. They don't.
I've been on these forums for far less time than I've been reading and participating in photography forums, so I'm no stranger to people throwing "tantrums" for things they want. I'm not used to seeing community soldiers specifically target the tantrums with explanations of corporate strategy, though. One would think that that's going to be a losing battle; there will always be more complainers than can be addressed, unless you have a full time job of policing forums and reminding people that their desires don't matter to the companies that are trying to sell products (but apparently not to them).
True enough, and many are ignored. But the alternative is to let them set the tone of the forum. I think an occasional reality check can be of use.
Fair, although if they have decided on f/1.2 I wouldn't hold my breath.
You would think, and yet they seem to have prioritised zooms over primes, so I wouldn't dare to guess now.
I don't personally fully understand it, sorry. There's a f/1.8, there will apparently soon be a f/1.2. The market has shrunk, is there still room for a third rank of lenses between those two? Again that's rather above my pay grade to answer.
Just a point of order, that word doesn't seem appropriate here, but whatever.
Oh my sweet summer child.
Mostly for landscapes, cities (unless a TS lens is needed), handheld in churches or museums, when allowed. I like its natural perspective despite it being a WA.
So if everyone agreed with the people demanding Canon make the particular product they want or else, that wouldn’t be an echo chamber, right? No, I’m sure that would be perfectly fine. But providing a valid business reason that ‘demand’ (from n=1) isn’t likely to be met constitutes a forum dangerously full of mansplaining simping corporate soldiers. Sure, sure.
So you’d rather sell 500 widgets for $1 each than 50 widgets for $20 each? That a fancy-looking little business degree you found at the bottom of your box of Cracker Jacks.
I know, it’s hard to escape yourself. But try.
I didn't realize it was the same person... This is the third or fourth time?
