Delays seem to be the name of the game for 2021

[Joules]

Well sir, I would say the opposite is true for you, you ain't got the RF glass, you ain't got no clue about it! I however, and in point of fact, I have $15,000 worth of RF glass. Now, if I told you I had owned the Tamron 70-200 G2, and that I had owned the Sigma 85 Art, and the Sigma 12-24 Art, and the Tamron 90mm Macro, would you believe me? If it gets more modern than that let me know.

If you do have experience with these lenses, why act like they don't provide a value?

Why act like purchasing products based on how well they suit your needs is sad?

Why pretend the people who purchase third party are unaware of what they are buying?

Why make such strange assumptions about the business practices of third party manufacturers.

It's not just about downgrading the quality. It's just different design priorities that allow different manufacturers to target different customer types. Size, weight, optical quality, price, everybody has different priorities.

Each manufacturer operates in their own niches. Just because Sigma and Tamron typically target a lower price, doesn't mean that the quality they provide relative to this price is anything to sneeze at. Especially the most recent designs that are currently not available in RF but in L and E mount show great performance. And there are plenty of design niches that Canon hasn't ever made any efforts of directly competing in, like they Sigma 18-35 mm 1.8, 60-600mm 6.3 or 14mm 1.8.

If you want to act like a snob and feel sorry for the people who buy 'lesser' gear, go ahead. I hope there's a Leica user out there who in turn is sorry for you.

 

[Joules]

The only troll here is the goof trying to tell us to buy crappy Tamron and Sigma lenses that won't work on next years Canon camera. I don't know if you noticed but this is CANON RUMORS... We use and appreciate CANON GEAR here! Now, if you want to run along to TAMRON rumors or SIGMA rumors dot com (as if anybody actually gave a shit what they have coming out) then you are welcome to it. But it seems that BEING A CANON user and afficianado would be less like TROLLING ON CANON RUMORS than being a SIGMA AFFICIONADO would be.

Hope it makes sense for ya there buddy boy!

Not sure if your subsequent post was deleted by you yourself or a mod. Anyway, you argued that Sigma and Tamron provide negative value to customers, that they hurt the industry as a whole, are partially responsible for the doom of Nikon (they're not even doomed yet!), and suggested that them not making their own camera bodies showed that they had poor engineering. Quite a few hot takes

So, here we go. The only way I see for a product to provide the customer negative value is if it was bought under the impression of some quality that the product didn't actually provide. In the case of lenses, there are plenty of reviews on the internet that establish the perception of value before a purchase, and if these were indeed misaligned with the actual performance of the products, you should have no problems to point out instances in which buyers called out the reviews for portraitraing an inaccurate view of the products value.

As for hurting the industry, I don't see how that would work. They are surely taking away market share from first party providers, but as I pointed out already, they mostly target niches not occupied by the first parties. So they are actually enhancing the options consumers have, making it more likely that they invest in the over all industry.

If Nikon actually goes belly up eventually, I'm sure they'll have many other factors to blame, besides third party manufacturers. Direct competitors like Canon and Sony for example.

To your last point, you are just objectively wrong there. Sigma make their own line of bodies and they are certainly interesting from an engineering point of view. Just not that appealing to the greater market. In the case of Tamron, sure, they don't make bodies. So what? Ever learned a bit about how companies work? Core competencies and such? Just because you don't excell at one thing does in no way mean you can't do so in another.

I get that it feels nice to look at your own processions and marvel at how great value they are and how well they serve the tasks you address with them. But I would urge you to develop some empathy and understanding of how different use cases and perspectives shape the values other people see and put into products and other aspects of life.

In other words, realize that there is no universal 'better'. There's only 'better given a certain set of user dependent criteria'.

 

[amorse]

I don't know, I definitely still lust after the Sigma 14mm f/1.8 and it doesn't seem that any manufacturer currently has anything equivalent. Consider also that Sigma and Tamron released their 15-30 and 14-24 f/2.8s before Canon had a 15-35 f/2.8, and similarly released 150-600s with no equivalent Canon superzoom available.

Sigma and Tamron may have historically focused on lenses they could provide a great value proposition on, but they have also filled gaps in lenses that weren't filled by Canon, and I think there is definitely a place for that. Not all camera buyers have unlimited cash and Sigma and Tamron make expanding a lens collection a lot more accessible. For instance, I am very interested in the Canon 100-500, but it's not lost on me that I could buy an R mount converter with the control ring, Sigma 100-400, and a Tamron 150-600 with over $500 left over here in Canada for the price of that RF 100-500. Depending on your needs and cash available, Sigma and Tamron can be great option, and for lenses like the 14mm f/1.8 they can be the only option too.

 

[Joules]

You obviously ran out of things to say, and you never had proof that 3rd party was worth a damn. But if you actually compared the RF consumer line to the Sigma Art line you would be shocked, dismayed, disillusioned, and ultimately, after beating yourself up for being so foolish, you would be a Canon customer.

Respect bro, S-grade Sh!tposting you've got going on there!

Edit: @Mods, is there some way to see how many of one's posts were deleted and the reasons for it?

I get why me feeding the troll isn't worthwhile staying on the platform. Just curious how many other of my posts got nuked in total and what rational goes into it. The rules page on this site isn't really doing much in the way of explaining.

 

[H. Jones]

I firmly lean towards the 18-45mm F/4-5.6 being a cheap full frame lens.

It could be an excellent, tiny full frame wide angle with a pretty decent long end, for those who don't need wide angle very often, plus it would make an effortless APS-C lens when that sort of camera gets released.

I could even see myself picking it up if Canon manages to make it around the size of the Sony 28-60mm F/4-5.6 and relatively cheap. I normally use primes in my small walk-around kit, but this could be a tiny and easy way to bring a wide zoom along.

 

[TravelerNick]

The more I think about about the 18-45mm F4-5.6 lense the less sense this lense makes to me.



It really bugs me that I can't figure it out. But knowing Canon, they will put it to good use such as the 600mm F11 and 800mm F11 which many folks didn't see any use in.

Nikon is selling a 24-50. If they have a low end cheap FF they need a cheap low end lens for it. Pushing 1k+ lenses for a sub 1K body will be a hard sell.

 

[TravelerNick]

This really does sound absolutely crazy. But is the shortage only related to Canons problems or also maybe to the difficulties with the Brexit? I live in Germany and RP/ R bodies seem to available at most photo stores (just checked several online). Even the R6/ R5 can be found at some places to my surprise.

The adapter still can't be bought separately, but it is available in RP/ R bundles. It's a shame it is not sold with R5´s... You only get one for free when you register your camera on CPS I think, but then the adapter is not available

Supply is very limited in Italy. One local dealer has basically two lenses. The fast 50mm and the 600mm. Okay the 24-105mm is now in stock along with the 800mm. One copy of each

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Nikon is selling a 24-50. If they have a low end cheap FF they need a cheap low end lens for it. Pushing 1k+ lenses for a sub 1K body will be a hard sell.

Thx for pointing it out. I hadn't thought about the upcoming sub 1k body. Then again, the 24-50mm must be a really cheap lense because the RF 24-105 F4-7.1 sells for around 400 € and as kit lense it is so cheap, it is basically included. Hard to beat out that value imho.

I firmly lean towards the 18-45mm F/4-5.6 being a cheap full frame lens.
It could be an excellent, tiny full frame wide angle with a pretty decent long end, for those who don't need wide angle very often

The way you word it, it does make sense. I thought that the 17-40mm as a "cheap" wide angle zoom was replaced by the EF 16-35mm F4.

The 17-40mm had a price of about 800 $ and the 16-35mm F4 at 999$ at their release date. Even now, the 17-40mm sells at 730 € (new condition) and the 16-35mm is at 980 € (and sometimes included in Cashback promotions) Their prices are so close, that I ruled out the possibility of both being released as an RF lense.

So, if your idea turns out to be true, this could mean two things:
1. the 18-45mm is going to be very, very cheap in order to separate from the RF 14-35mm
2. the RF 14-35mm ist going to be very expensive in order to separate from the 18-45mm

Ohhhhhh, I hope it is option No 1 Please, please, please

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Supply is very limited in Italy. One local dealer has basically two lenses. The fast 50mm and the 600mm. Okay the 24-105mm is now in stock along with the 800mm. One copy of each

Thx for sharing the information. It is very interesting to see the comparisons of supply in multiple countries. I guess, Germany is by far not in the roughest spot. It really helps me to become patient because I stated a while back I'd rather have the announcements/ presentation pushed back in order to have a timely delivery. I just wasn't aware of how bad the supply situation is worldwide. Therefore, I do have more reasons to become more patient and stick with my with.

 

[Richard CR]

The more I think about about the 18-45mm F4-5.6 lense the less sense this lense makes to me.

it's really not that difficult - you just are over thinking it

If it is a full frame lense:
- Wouldn't this lense be money down the drain? For an wide-angel it isn't wide enough and a zoom lense there are far better options such as the 24-105mm F4-7.1. Even as a replacement for the 17-40mm ist just doesn't seem right when

18mm is plenty wide enough for most people. it's a great gateway into the most esoteric UWA's, and it's probably going to be cheap.

also .. Nikon made an 18-35mm and no one said a bad thing about it. a lot of people liked the lens. What Nikon does, Canon pays attention to.

 

[preppyak]

The EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM is sold, in white box, for $110. How cheaper do they need to make a new kit lens?


The last three are faster / longer and more expensive than the 18-55.

Im not sure if you just misread my post or are being willingly obtuse, but EF-S lenses arent a good match for an RF mount camera. And certainly EF->RF adapting is fine, but, you arent gaining the full advantage of the RF mount for size and weight. An RF 18-45 can.

RF 24-105 for $400 as their default kit on most of their models makes sense, but if they can put out an even cheaper model that doesnt make too many optical compromises, suddenly a native RF mount set could go for the same or less than a 90D.

For example, I have a 90D w/ 18-135, 55-250, and a bunch of other various lenses. But, the APS-C advantage is relatively cheap lenses with good optics relative to their <$500 prices. If an RP + 18-45 + a cheap 50-200 or 70-200 thats probably f/4-7.1 nets you say a $1500 kit price? They literally dont need APS-C at that point.

 

[Antono Refa]

I'm not sure if you just misread my post or are being willingly obtuse, but EF-S lenses aren't a good match for an RF mount camera. And certainly EF->RF adapting is fine, but, you aren't gaining the full advantage of the RF mount for size and weight. An RF 18-45 can.

My point was: an RF-S [read: crop lens] 18-45mm f/4-5.6 IS STM doesn't make sense, as...

1. Price of EF-S lenses is a good reference for price of similar RF-S lenses, hence if an EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM is priced $110 in a white box, an RF-S lens which is both slower and shorter FL range will be cheaper.

2. The other three lenses make sense because they're faster and/or have wider FL range.

So, as you seem to be willingly obtuse, I'll repeat my point: I don't see any sense in Canon making an RF-S 18-45mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. Its too limited, even for a cheapo kit lens.

I agree this might make sense as a full frame lens, though I think its a little odd.

 

[tron]

The RF 18-45 is an odd one. Could be an interesting lens for video shooters, especially when using the cropped 4k etc on the R/RP.

But for a wide angle stills lens it's a total non starter. It's not quite a 17-40 replacement, nor it is an affordable UWA option. They really need to hurry up with a good cheap wide angle for RF. Something like an EFS 10-18 type of deal. £2k+ for the RF 15-35 is not an option for most!

The EF-S10-18 is a cheap (with nice IQ) 16-29mm equivalent. So a FF 18-45 f/4-5.6 paired with RP for example is a cheap equivalent solution. It seems a strange range but it can be paired with 24-105 (the f/7.1 version) and/or 24-240. The overlapping helps to avoid constant lens swaps. Of course assuming it is a FF lens (and yes I agree, an odd one).