Some like it of course. Main complaints are about the pricing and where it fits in. It’s a lot more expensive than the excellent Z 400 f/4.5 and so one group would use that and TCs. Another group with deeper pockets would pay the extra and get the Z 800 f.6.3. And others would go with the new and far cheaper and more versatile Z 180-600 f/6.3. And the adapted 500 f/5.6 is now cheap used. So, it’s internal Nikon competition.
This is so true. Nikon have often divided their own future market and created their own competition within their own lens line up.
Canon;s biggest RF competition is their excellent used EF lenses.
When a fine example of the EF 100-400mm f5.6 II LIS is available for less than a used RF 100-500mm LIS and can achieve similar results it becomes clear why Canon are deperately trying to create more value in the newer RF lenses.
The new RF 10-20mm is a great example, Canon have made a lot of effort to create the EF 11-24mm's RF replacement as a lighter, smaller and more portable option. In the hope that existing EF owners will side grade for the portability benefits.
I suspect that the lack of a RF 35mm f1.4/1.2 is due to a lack of clear advantage over the excellent EF version.
I own three white EF lenses and currently, no RF lenses. I've only gone mirrorless in the last 4 months, so it's early days yet. I could have bought a RF 100-500mm but I chose a mint used EF 100-400 II L because it was nearly 1/3rd of the price and left me funds to side grade my EF 400mm f2.8 LIS mk 1 to a mk2. It's also allowed me to upgrade some of my older mk1 EF L lenses to newer mkII versions.
I am tempted by the RF 70-200/2.8 LIS. In isolation, I prefer the EF version. I get TC's and other benefits. However, I appreciate how small and compact the RF lens is. If I also have a long walkabouts lens (100-400/100-500) in my bag then I don't need the teleconverters.