Well, most of the community that wants to use wide, fast L-series primes. I'm sure Canon has a reasonable estimate of the size of that community, and that factors into their prioritization of those lenses vs. others.
You, my good sir, are correct... and heartess
Awwww! I've just written I was going to sulk silently in my corner from now on and you do me like this?
Canon doesn't seem to care about "gaping holes" in the lineup. No other manufacturer has such huge gaps, for example, 50 1.8 / 50 1.2, 85 F2 / 85 1.2, 100-400 / 100-500.
They're just reading a different book than you. Their book is called, "How to lead the ILC market for two decades and continue to dominate it." Your book is called something like, "Lenses that I want." Both are good reads, but the intended audience is a bit different.
Or more likely is the guys with
That’s an interesting thought, maybe a RF 20-105 f4 L IS? Very different and massively versatile.
With respect I think you're looking at it the wrong way. Nikon has to try harder because they've haemorrhaged customers over the past few years. So they have to make a more compelling offer. Canon's position is quite different. It doesn't help you as a consumer but understanding motivations can at least give perspective.
Along those thought lines...one could conjuncture that Nikon is targeting the gaps in Canon's line to try and have a compelling offer for someone. If they can bring over a few hundred or thousand users, that might double their user base.
Gear can help compensate a little bit, but ultimately the photographer is the main piece of the equation. Nikon makes nice cameras, what they are lacking however id an APSC for us wildlife folks. Something both Canon and Sony have. One solace is the Z8 which packs almost everything the Z9 has in a slightly cheaper package.
I'm not sure if I will buy a RF 35 or not, but if it's F/1.2 I'm more likely than f/1.4I've been on a family trip recently and I shot many photos in dimly lit restaurants with the RF 50 1.2 ... and I still had to crank up the ISO at 3200 or 6400. I know I know modern AI NR is great, but, call me old-fashioned, I still prefer shooting at the lowest ISO possible. In some occasions during that trip I wished I had a fast 35mm since my daughter was playing with her friend and 50mm was too tight.
Long-winded way of saying that there are situations where 1.2 v 1.4 would matter.... to me.
But, while I still would love for Canon to cater to my wishes and release the 35 1.2 next month, I think I will stop repeating myself on this forum. It is obvious that Canon does not listen to me (the horror
What I will do is what I have always been doing: I will vote with my wallet. RF 35 1.2 will be a buy, RF 35 1.4 will not be
Canon has 3 great options for that focal length and aperture. Two of which, I frequently see used at a good discount.
I guess that is a good point! I suppose I don’t have a working knowledge of the historical data of canon lenses. I would say in 2023 there are a lot of semi professional photographers more than even before. If historically there was just amateurs and professionals it makes sense why canon hasn’t filled that slot. But it isn’t the days gone by and now there are plenty of people, particularly birders and wildlife shooters that won’t sharp photos but aren’t quite open to a 15k f4 that weighs as much as a toddler.
