I don't think Fuji has Canon worried.Canon took #1 mirror-less sales for 2018 but you consider not competitive? Huh?
Also Canon already has a superb 55-200 F4.5-5.6.
Upvote
0
I don't think Fuji has Canon worried.Canon took #1 mirror-less sales for 2018 but you consider not competitive? Huh?
Also Canon already has a superb 55-200 F4.5-5.6.
On the plus side, this gives the impression EOS-R would have a complete line of lenses in a couple of years.
On the minus side, this shows Canon has been neglecting the EF line of lenses.
After having introduced quite recently a lot of great lenses...and you call this "neglecting" ?????
EF 400, 600, TSE 50-90-135, 70/200 F2,8, 70/200 F4, 1,4/85
After having introduced quite recently a lot of great lenses...and you call this "neglecting" ?????
EF 400, 600, TSE 50-90-135, 70/200 F2,8, 70/200 F4, 1,4/85
Keep in mind that in the EF market Canon has had strong competition in the 50mm segment. Right now the 50mm segment is dominated by the Sigma Art 50mm f/1.4 and the Tamron 45mm f/1.8 VC.
I own the latter and I don't see how Canon could convince me to buy an upgraded EF 50 f/1.8 or f/1.4.
But Star Trek Discovery!
Canon has already said (in various executive interviews etc) that their current focus (no pun intended) is to build up the RF range over the next year or so. It's no secret - they will have multiple EOS R bodies by this time next year, and surely a decent range of L and non-L zooms and primes for them.On the plus side, this gives the impression EOS-R would have a complete line of lenses in a couple of years.
On the minus side, this shows Canon has been neglecting the EF line of lenses.
Canon has already said (in various executive interviews etc) that their current focus (no pun intended) is to build up the RF range over the next year or so. It's no secret - they will have multiple EOS R bodies by this time next year, and surely a decent range of L and non-L zooms and primes for them.
They would see the EF lens range as pretty much complete, and in terms of upgrading non-L primes, that would almost certainly strike them as cannibalising their EF L lenses.
Assuming that were even true, given the whole strategy, yes it does.It makes more sense to lose sales to the Tamron 45mm f/1.8 VC?
Assuming that were even true, given the whole strategy, yes it does.
Well it makes sense in your individual situation, but the world's largest camera maker's strategy is about the whole market, in comparison to which you and I are gnats on the ass of an elephant.Over the past few years, I've replaced every 3rd party lens I've bought with a Canon lens, e.g. the Sigma 12-24mm with a Canon 11-24mm f/4.
Now I'm going to buy a Tamron 45mm f/1.8 VC, because Canon has nothing similar. That's a lost sale.
How does that make sense, given the whole strategy?
Can anyone shed some light on how retrofocus glass will be any different with the RF design vs EF? Can it be a shrinking of the pickle jar or is there no way around that?
You've asked, therefore I'll answer...
The 70-200mm f/2.8L mkIII was released just to make production more efficient. It shows care for Canon's profits (nothing wrong with that), but not for the customers (which is my point).
The super teles & TS-E target small audiences. What's neglected is non-L primes for what I think is a larger audience, and I think an EF 50mm f/1.8 IS USM is a good example. Canon can make EF 35mm f/2 IS & EF 85mm f/1.4L IS, it can make a 50mm f/1.8 IS USM, but my money would be spent on the Tamron 45mm f/1.8 VC.
I'm afraid I don't get the point.
What do you think is actually missing in the non-L range?
24 IS, 28 IS, 35 IS, 1,8 STM. The 2 lenses that could be missing are maybe 1,4/50 and 2,8/20.