I did mentioned in my post lenses that meet the needs of professionals and enthusiasts which is what I mean. I'm sure for some of them they could well find uses for variable aperture zooms. However there are also many use cases where those lenses won't be suitable, weddings and events come to mind. For users on lower budgets that trinity is a great price absolutely but again for those that need more but can't afford the L series zooms what do they do?
For most, given Canon’s installed base, the answer is probably to just use an adapter with the EF L zoom trinity they already have.
So you agree when people state that Canon RF glass is overpriced that is not in fact true when compared to like for like 1st party offerings?
And what about for those who don’t have any existing EF lenses? Do they go for those heavier overpriced options still?
"Canon RF glass is competitively priced compared to other 1st party glass in the US ONLY and is greatly overpriced in other countries but fails to offer the value proposition of 3rd party glass"
If they want and can afford them, sure. There’s also the lighter and less expensive f/4 L zoom trinity. Or non-L RF lenses. Or used EF lenses. Or 3rd party EF mount lenses. Or Nikon. Or Sony. Choice is good.
Hmm, I guess "fixed" means something different where you are from.And what about for those who don’t have any existing EF lenses? Do they go for those heavier overpriced options still?
"Canon RF glass is competitively priced compared to other 1st party glass in the US ONLY and is greatly overpriced in other countries but fails to offer the value proposition of 3rd party glass"
Fixed that for you
Canon obviously thinks differently than you. I am confident the company that has led the ILC market for two decades knows more about that market than you. They clearly don’t believe shutting out 3rd party AF lenses for the RF mount will hurt them.
Last year (2021), 48% of ILCs sold were Canon. Sony was at ~22% and Nikon was at ~14%. Compared to 2020, Canon modest increase (2.5% gain) was bigger than Sony’s (1.9%).
Oh, I should have read to the end. Ranting doesn’t require logic or acknowledgement of facts. All good.
Every time someone says this I am left dumbfounded. How in the world does it hurt Canon to make the lens sale? Somebody looking to buy an additional lens already has the camera. Sometimes it seems people think there's no profit in lenses for Canon, and that the body sale is all that matters.
There are different types of customers when it comes to lenses - OEM only, mix of OEM and 3rd party, 3rd party only.
I’m sure Canon knows this, and they have not done so. Perhaps they’re wrong, but history suggests otherwise.
Just take a look at the pricing of G Master II lenses in Europe (Calumet), no advantage over RF lenses.And what about for those who don’t have any existing EF lenses? Do they go for those heavier overpriced options still?
"Canon RF glass is competitively priced compared to other 1st party glass in the US ONLY and is greatly overpriced in other countries but fails to offer the value proposition of 3rd party glass"
Fixed that for you
Canon EF 35mm f1.4 L II - £2099
Massive in the 35mm & 24mm's case, yes (in the UK). But, even in the UK, the GM IIs cost massively more than their GM predecessors.
And that’s where the whole point of this thread comes in, for the FE mount you have the excellent Sigma DN and Tamron options which are just as good as those lenses but much cheaper and on Canon they don’t exist.
You say not yet as if you have a certainty that they’re coming so no different to my statement.
Unfair seems like an apt descriptor. But it’s a small market, sadly grappling with a self-made economic crisis. I don’t see Canon changing their pricing policy for the UK, which can give residents a skewed view of global pricing.
